Clinical and cervical cytokine response to treatment with oral or vaginal metronidazole for bacterial vaginosis during pregnancy: a randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of oral versus vaginal metronidazole treatment in pregnant women with bacterial vaginosis, and to compare cytokine profiles (interleukin-1beta, -6, and -8) in the cervical secretions of these women before and after treatment. METHODS: Pregnant women with bacterial vaginosis diagnosed both by Gram stain and clinical criteria were randomized to receive oral (n=52) or vaginal (n=50) metronidazole therapy. Cervical specimens for cytokine analysis and vaginal fluid for evaluation of bacterial vaginosis were obtained at baseline and 4 weeks after treatment. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in therapeutic cure rates (defined as a Gram stain score of 0-3 and the absence of all four clinical signs of bacterial vaginosis) between the two groups (71% and 70% for the oral and vaginal groups, respectively, P=1.0). Cervical levels of interleukin-1beta, -6, and -8 were significantly lower after treatment among the 72 women cured of bacterial vaginosis (P<.001, P=.001, and P=.02, respectively) but not among women who failed to respond to therapy. For interleukin-1beta and -6, a significant decrease in cytokine level was observed in both the oral and vaginal treatment groups. CONCLUSION: One week of oral metronidazole and 5 days of intravaginal metronidazole are equally efficacious for treatment of bacterial vaginosis during pregnancy. The decrease in cervical interleukin-1beta, -6, and -8 levels among women who established a normal flora after treatment but not among those with persistent bacterial vaginosis suggests a direct linkage between vaginal flora abnormalities and elevated cervical levels of interleukin-1beta, -6, and -8.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".