A systematic review of the effect of daily panty liner use on the vulvovaginal environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether panty liners predispose to vulvovaginitis is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To clarify the effects of the use of panty liners on the female genital tract. SEARCH STRATEGY: Several electronic databases (including PubMed and Embase) were searched to identify studies published in English before May 3, 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Case-control studies, randomized controlled trials, and cohort studies comparing young women who did and did not use panty liners in the intermenstrual period were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or the Jadad Scale. Data from suitable studies were extracted for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Five articles met the inclusion criteria. Four studies-all of which included only healthy women-found no significant clinical implications arising from the use of panty liners. The fifth study was of women with recurrent candidiasis and showed that use of panty liners was associated with new candidiasis episodes. CONCLUSIONS: The intermenstrual use of panty liners does not seem to have a negative effect on the vulvovaginal area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".