MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113043422 · doi:10.1086/521628

Cytokines, Pregnancy, and Bacterial Vaginosis: Comparison of Levels of Cervical Cytokines in Pregnant and Nonpregnant Women with Bacterial Vaginosis

2007· article· en· W2113043422 on OpenAlexaff
Richard H. Beigi, Mark H. Yudin, Lisa A. Cosentino, Leslie A. Meyn, Sharon L. Hillier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPreterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsBacterial vaginosisProinflammatory cytokinePregnancyMedicineVaginitisImmune systemVaginal floraObstetricsVaginaImmunologyPhysiologyGynecologyBiologyInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy has been considered to be a time of relative immune compromise. Lower-genital-tract immune response appears to be influenced by pregnancy. The objective of this study was to compare, in pregnant versus nonpregnant women, endocervical proinflammatory-cytokine expression in response to bacterial vaginosis. METHODS: Endocervical levels of interleukin (IL)-1 beta , IL-6, and IL-8 in 99 pregnant and 99 nonpregnant women, all with bacterial vaginosis and without concurrent sexually transmitted infections, were assessed by ELISA. Vaginal flora was characterized on the basis of quantitative vaginal cultures. RESULTS: Women in the 2 groups differed with respect to smoking status and microbiological constituents responsible for bacterial vaginosis. When the data were stratified by these potential confounders, the levels of all 3 proinflammatory endocervical cytokines were significantly higher in pregnant women than in nonpregnant women. CONCLUSIONS: The proinflammatory cytokine milieu in the cervix is enhanced in pregnant women with bacterial vaginosis, compared with that in nonpregnant women. The notion of pregnancy as an immune-compromised state may be anatomically compartment specific.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations56
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicPreterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisFrench-language works237,207