‘PCOS is inaccurate’—why scientists renamed polycystic ovary syndrome

May 12, 2026

2 min read

Add Us On GoogleAdd SciAm

‘PCOS is inaccurate’—why scientists renamed polycystic ovary syndrome

A multiyear effort to rename polycystic ovary syndrome finally revealed the condition’s new name: polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome

By Claire Cameron edited by Jeanna Bryner

A gynecological ultrasound.

Photo by BSIP/UIG via Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Sign Up for Our Free Daily NewsletterEnter your email

I agree my information will be processed in accordance with the Scientific American and Springer Nature Limited Privacy Policy. We leverage third party services to both verify and deliver email. By providing your email address, you also consent to having the email address shared with third parties for those purposes.

Sign Up

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is no more. The condition, of course, still exists. But on Tuesday a global science consortium announced the term will be thrown out. In a policy paper, the panel explained that the name was “inaccurate” because it didn’t fully capture the condition’s metabolic and endocrine features—including the fact that it likely affects men, too.

The condition will now be called polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS)—the group hopes the new diagnosis will be more accurate, reduce stigma and bolster research. The decision affects the estimated more than 170 million people who have the syndrome. Long thought to be a gynecological disease that only affected people with ovaries, evidence suggests it is much more than that. Signs of the condition can include obesity and hypertension, depression, eating disorders, acne and infertility, among others. These “multisystem health impacts,” the paper’s authors write, are why PCOS needed to be reclassified as PMOS.

Many people go undiagnosed or misdiagnosed, while many more feel dissatisfied with their medical care and severe stigma, the authors write. Still, the effort to revise the term for the condition had stopped and started many times over the past two decades. Now researchers hope that the name change will spark new studies into syndrome, such as its genetic components—and perhaps potential treatments. Right now there is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved therapeutic for the condition.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

First, the consortium needs to push through the new name change. In the policy paper, which was published in the Lancet, the authors lay out a plan for the World Health Organization and the International Classification of Diseases to adopt the new name over the next three years, meaning it could become the international standard in 2028.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe