A systematic review of clinical studies on hereditary factors in pelvic organ prolapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is growing evidence that pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is at least partly caused by underlying hereditary risk factors. The aim of our study was to provide a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of clinical studies on family history of POP as a risk factor for POP in individual women. METHODS: The databases PubMed and Embase were searched. Clinical studies reporting on family history of POP in relation to POP in individual women were included. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included, of which eight enabled us to calculate a pooled odds ratio (OR). The pooled OR of POP in case of a positive family history of POP was 2.58 (95 % confidence interval 2.12-3.15). CONCLUSIONS: Women with POP are substantially more likely to have family members with the same condition compared to women without POP. This strengthens the hypothesis that genetic predisposition plays an important role in the development of POP.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".