Improved Understanding of the Bacterial Vaginal Microbiota of Women before and after Probiotic Instillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vaginal bacterial microbiota of 19 premenopausal women was examined by PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and sequencing of the V2-V3 region of the 16S rRNA gene. Ten of the women were studied further to investigate the effect and persistence of vaginally inserted capsules containing viable lactobacilli. PCR-DGGE indicated that most subjects had a microbiota represented by one to three dominant DNA fragments. Analysis of these fragments revealed that 79% of the women possessed sequences with high levels of similarity to Lactobacillus species sequences. Sequences homologous to Lactobacillus iners sequences were the most common and were detected in 42% of the women tested. Alteration of the vaginal microbiota could be detected by PCR-DGGE in several women after the instillation of lactobacilli. Additionally, randomly amplified polymorphic DNA analysis of lactobacilli isolated from selective media demonstrated that the exogenous strains could be detected for up to 21 days in some subjects. This study demonstrates that non-culture-based techniques, such as PCR-DGGE, are useful adjuncts for studies of the vaginal microbiota.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".