ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2025
What do users in a polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) forum think about the treatments they tried: Analysing treatment sentiment using machine learning.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a heterogenous condition that is estimated to effect up to 21% of reproductive aged people with ovaries. In previous work, a dataset of PCOS features was derived from approximately 100,000 PCOS subreddit users via machine learning. In this study, an exploration of treatment response within the PCOS subreddit was undertaken with the derived dataset. The treatment or symptom features in the dataset had sentiment labels indicating when a treatment was perceived to improve or worsen a condition or symptom. When different features were mentioned within two sentences of each other without conflicting sentiment, it could be assumed that they were related. This assumption allowed for a broad analysis of the perceived effect of popular treatments on the most frequently mentioned symptoms. In general, lifestyle changes and supplements were the most positively regarded, while contraceptives were frequently associated with considerable negative sentiment. For PCOS weight loss, unspecified dieting (RR 5.19, 95% CI 3.28-8.19, n = 99) and intermittent fasting (RR 33.50, 95% CI 8.54-131.34, n = 69) were the most successful interventions. Inositol was associated with a large range of favourable outcomes and was one of the few treatments associated with improved mental health [depression (RR 4.25, 95% CI 1.72-10.51, n = 21), anxiety (RR 5.83, 95% CI 2.76-12.35, n = 41) and mood issues (RR 25.00, 95% CI 3.65-171.10, n = 26)]. Combined oral contraceptive pills as a whole were strongly associated with adverse effects such as worsening depression (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02-0.25, n = 33), anxiety (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.36, n = 23), fatigue (RR 0, n = 45) and low libido (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.24, n = 30). However, combined contraceptives with anti-androgenic progestins were associated with more favourable experiences. This study demonstrates the utility of machine learning to derive measurable patient experience data from an internet forum. While patient experience data derived using machine learning is not a substitute for traditional clinical trials, it is useful for mass validation and hypothesis generation. This paper may serve as the first exploration into this category of clinical internet forum research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.