CorrespondenceVolume 408, Issue 10549p26-27July 04, 2026

From PCOS to PMOS: perspectives on the new nomenclature

Affiliations & Notes
aCERFERTIL Fertility Center, Guadalajara, Jalisco, 44670, Mexico
bMexican Association of Reproductive Medicine, Mexico City, Mexico
cUniversity of Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico
dIVI-RMA Global Alliance Research Vigo, Spain
eDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cauca, Popayan, Colombia
fClínica IMAR, Murcia, Spain
gProyecto SOP, Murcia, Spain
hDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, United States of America
iHSHS St. John's Hospital, Springfield, IL, United States of America
Article Info
Publication History:
Published July 4, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Elsevier Ltd. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.
Linked Articles
Cover Image - The Lancet, Volume 408, Issue 10549
The group led by Helena J Teede should be commended for undertaking a rigorous international effort through surveys and expert consensus to reconsider the nomenclature of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).1 The proposed term polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS) represents an important attempt to move beyond historically inaccurate terminology. However, renaming alone does not resolve one of the central challenges of PCOS: the marked biological and clinical heterogeneity of the condition itself. Genetic, endocrine, and metabolic phenotyping studies show substantial variability among women diagnosed with PCOS, complicating efforts to establish uniform diagnostic frameworks and management strategies.2,3
Although the term polycystic is clearly misleading, PMOS could also be considered biologically imprecise. Polyendocrine lacks clearly defined biological boundaries, metabolic risks disproportionately emphasising cardiometabolic manifestations despite recognised phenotypic heterogeneity, and ovarian continues to localise a fundamentally systemic disorder to a single organ. Importantly, the proposed terminology underemphasises hyperandrogenism, arguably the most consistent defining feature across phenotypes.2,3
Although complete global representation is difficult to achieve in large international initiatives, the limited representation of Latin American populations is notable for a proposal intended to support globally applicable recommendations.4 Importantly, survey instruments were not translated into Spanish, despite Spanish being the world's second most spoken native language. This omission is particularly relevant because “cultural and linguistic appropriateness” was identified as a core guiding principle for the new nomenclature.1 Greater linguistic and regional inclusivity could strengthen future efforts towards achieving a truly global consensus before implementing terminology intended to redefine one of the world's most prevalent endocrine disorders.

Competing Interests

JAMV reports personal fees and support for attendance at scientific meetings from IFA Celtics, Besins Healthcare, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals, unrelated to this Correspondence. ESdlL reports honoraria from Procare Health and support for attending meetings from IBSA Iberia. All other authors declare no competing interests.
During the preparation of this Correspondence, the authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI, GPT-5.5) to assist with grammar and punctuation. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

References

1.
Teede, HJ ∙ Khomami, MB ∙ Morman, R ∙ et al.
Polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome, the new name for polycystic ovary syndrome: a multistep global consensus process
Lancet. 2026; 407:2329-2339
2.
Azziz, R ∙ Carmina, E ∙ Chen, Z ∙ et al.
Polycystic ovary syndrome
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016; 2, 16057
3.
Stener-Victorin, E ∙ Teede, H ∙ Norman, RJ ∙ et al.
Polycystic ovary syndrome
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2024; 10:27
4.
Moran, C ∙ Tena, G ∙ Moran, S ∙ et al.
Prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome and related disorders in Mexican women
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2010; 69:274-280

Article metrics