Additional file 1 of Risk of hypertension in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: Table S1. Quality assessment of included studies using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cross-sectional studies. Table S2. Quality assessment of included studies using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort studies. Table S3. Quality assessment of included studies using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for case-control studies. Figure S1. Risk of bias in cross-sectional and case- control studies. Figure S2. Risk of bias in cohort studies. Figure S3. Sensitivity analysis for RR in reproductive age group for all studies. Table S4. sensitivity analysis for RR in reproductive age group for all studies. Figure S4. Sensitivity analysis for RR in menopause aging group for all studies. Table S5. Sensitivity analysis for RR in menopause aging group for all studies. Figure S5. Sensitivity analysis for Prevalence in patients with PCOS of reproductive ages. Table S6. Sensitivity analysis for Prevalence in patients with PCOS in reproductive ages. Figure S6. Sensitivity analysis for Prevalence in patients with PCOS in menopause aging group. Table S7. Sensitivity analysis for Prevalence in patients with PCOS in menopause aging group. Figure S7. Sensitivity analysis for Prevalence in healthy controls of reproductive ages. Table S8. Sensitivity analysis for Prevalence in healthy control of reproductive ages. Figure S8. Sensitivity analysis for Prevalence in healthy control of menopause aging group. Table S9. Sensitivity analysis for Prevalence in healthy control of menopause aging group. Figure S9. The result of sensitivity analysis for all age subgroups. Figure S10. The result of sensitivity analysis for reproductive age subgroup. Figure S11. The result of sensitivity analysis for menopause/aging subgroup. Figure S12. Forest plot of pooled relative risk of HTN for all studies except those with Rotterdam criteria. Figure S13. Forest plot of pooled relative risk of HTN for all population based studies except those with Rotterdam criteria. Figure S14. Forest plot of pooled relative risk of HTN for all non-population based studies except those with Rotterdam criteria.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.762 | 0.030 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".