MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123893262 · doi:10.1136/sti.78.4.289

Mycoplasma genitalium is not associated with adverse outcomes of pregnancy in Guinea-Bissau

2002· article· en· W2123893262 on OpenAlexafffund
A-C Labbé

Bibliographic record

VenueSexually Transmitted Infections · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Bureau for International Education
KeywordsMycoplasma genitaliumMedicinePregnancyObstetricsOdds ratioGynecologySyphilisChlamydia trachomatisInternal medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Immunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of Mycoplasma genitalium on the outcome of pregnancy. METHODS: Cervical samples from women who had previously participated in a case-control study (designed to assess the impact of syphilis and HIV-2 on the outcome of pregnancy in Guinea-Bissau) were processed using a PCR assay to detect the presence of M genitalium. Controls were women who had delivered a term neonate with a birth weight over 2500 g. Cases were classified into four groups of mothers according to the outcome of pregnancy: stillbirths, spontaneous abortions, premature deliveries, and small for gestational age (SGA) babies. RESULTS: Among the 1014 women included in this study, 6.2% were infected with M genitalium. M genitalium infection was not significantly associated with any of the adverse outcomes of pregnancy studied. Odds ratios (OR) for premature or SGA delivery in the presence of M genitalium infection were 1.37 (95% CI 0.69 to 2.60) and 0.44 (95% CI 0.01 to 2.75), respectively. For abortions and stillbirths, OR were respectively 0.61 (95% CI 0.07 to 2.51) and 1.07 (95% CI 0.42 to 2.42). CONCLUSION: M genitalium appears not to have a deleterious impact on the outcome of pregnancy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 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

Citations76
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexually Transmitted InfectionsSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207