{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04564820450395618, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03225806451612903, 'mean_word_length': 4.7282229965156795, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 2, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The value of the free androgen index depends on the phenotype of polycystic ovary syndrome — a single-centre experience

Introduction: The free androgen index (FAI) values differ among patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome; however, the differences are not fully understood or known. The aim of the study was to evaluate FAI in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in regard to the phenotype of the PCOS and insulin resistance status. Material and methods: Anthropometric, hormonal, and biochemical parameters were assessed in 312 recruited women with PCOS. The FAI values were calculated in the reproductive and metabolic phenotypes of PCOS in groups of insulin resistance status based on the homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) > 2.0 or fasting insulin (FI) > 10 mmol/L. To test the relationship between individual variables, Spearman’s correlation analysis, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and Student’s t-test were used. Results: The correlation between FAI values and HOMA-IR and FI was 0.42 and 0.47, respectively, in PCOS patients. A two fold higher FAI value was observed in metabolic PCOS phenotype when compared to the reproductive one (8.51 ± 5.56 vs. 4.40 ± 2.45 for HOMA-IR and 8.73 ± 6.09 vs. 4.31 ± 3.39 for FI, respectively; p < 0.05). Conclusions: PCOS patients are not a homogenous group in terms of FAI value. Patients with metabolic PCOS phenotype are characterised by two-fold higher FAI values compared with reproductive PCOS phenotype. Further studies on the metabolic and androgenic status of different types of PCOS phenotypes should be carried out. (Endokrynol Pol 2019; 70 (4): 330–335)