MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1942393720 · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmv041

The role of infection in miscarriage

2015· review· en· W1942393720 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sevi Giakoumelou, Nick Wheelhouse, Kate Cuschieri, Gary Entrican, Sarah Howie, Andrew W. Horne

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction Update · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParvovirus B19 Infection Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological SciencesRural and Environment Science and Analytical Services DivisionResearch Councils UKTommy'sZoetisScottish Government
KeywordsMiscarriageObstetricsMedicinePregnancyGynecologyBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 12 weeks (early miscarriage) or from 12 to 24 weeks (late miscarriage) of gestation. Miscarriage occurs in one in five pregnancies and can have considerable physiological and psychological implications for the patient. It is also associated with significant health care costs. There is evidence that potentially preventable infections may account for up to 15% of early miscarriages and up to 66% of late miscarriages. However, the provision of associated screening and management algorithms is inconsistent for newly pregnant women. Here, we review recent population-based studies on infections that have been shown to be associated with miscarriage. METHODS: Our aim was to examine where the current scientific focus lies with regards to the role of infection in miscarriage. Papers dating from June 2009 with key words 'miscarriage' and 'infection' or 'infections' were identified in PubMed (292 and 327 papers, respectively, on 2 June 2014). Relevant human studies (meta-analyses, case-control studies, cohort studies or case series) were included. Single case reports were excluded. The studies were scored based on the Newcastle - Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. RESULTS: The association of systemic infections with malaria, brucellosis, cytomegalovirus and human immunodeficiency virus, dengue fever, influenza virus and of vaginal infection with bacterial vaginosis, with increased risk of miscarriage has been demonstrated. Q fever, adeno-associated virus, Bocavirus, Hepatitis C and Mycoplasma genitalium infections do not appear to affect pregnancy outcome. The effects of Chlamydia trachomatis, Toxoplasma gondii, human papillomavirus, herpes simplex virus, parvovirus B19, Hepatitis B and polyomavirus BK infections remain controversial, as some studies indicate increased miscarriage risk and others show no increased risk. The latest data on rubella and syphilis indicate increased antenatal screening worldwide and a decrease in the frequency of their reported associations with pregnancy failure. Though various pathogens have been associated with miscarriage, the mechanism(s) of infection-induced miscarriage are not yet fully elucidated. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is required to clarify whether certain infections do increase miscarriage risk and whether screening of newly pregnant women for treatable infections would improve reproductive outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations467
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Reproduction UpdateSame topicParvovirus B19 Infection StudiesFrench-language works237,207