MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418112823 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000003077

Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection-Associated Risk of Cervical Cancer

2016· review· en· W2418112823 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersZhejiang Provincial Program for the Cultivation of High-Level Innovative Health Talents
KeywordsMedicineChlamydia trachomatisOdds ratioCervical cancerInternal medicineCochrane LibraryGynecologyMeta-analysisCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As whether Chlamydia trachomatis infection increases the risk of cervical cancer is controversial in the literature, we performed a meta-analysis.Based on a comprehensive search of publications in the Medline, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases, we identified and extracted data from all relevant articles examining C. trachomatis infection and the risk of cervical cancer. The quality of each included study was assessed according to the 9-star Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The strength of association between the C. trachomatis and risk of cervical cancer was estimated by odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). This review was registered at PROSPERO with registration No. CRD42014015672. A total of 22 studies with 4291 cervical cancer cases and 7628 controls were identified. Overall, C. trachomatis was significantly linked to increased cervical cancer risk in prospective studies (OR = 2.21, 95% CI: 1.88-2.61, P < 0.001), as well as in retrospective studies (OR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.74-2.74, P < 0.001). Additionally, with a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for HPV and age, C. trachomatis infection was identified as an independent predictor of cervical cancer in 11 studies (OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.03-3.01, P = 0.04). Coinfection of human papilloma virus and C. trachomatis has a higher risk of cervical cancer (OR = 4.03, 95% CI: 3.15-5.16, P < 0.001). A subgroup analysis based on histological type indicated an elevated risk for both squamous cell carcinoma (OR = 2.21, 95% CI: 2.00-2.45, P < 0.001), and adenocarcinoma (OR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.21-2.15, P = 0.001), in associated with C. trachomatis. Subgroup analysis by where C. trachomatis infection was detected showed a significantly higher risk of cervical cancer associated with C. trachomatis infection detected in serum (OR = 2.20, 95% CI: 2.01-2.42, P < 0.001), cervical tissue blocks (OR = 2.88, 95% CI: 1.21-6.83, P = 0.02), and cervical secretion (OR = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.41-5.20, P = 0.003), especially in serum with no obvious heterogeneity.In conclusion, our novel data demonstrate that individuals infected with C. trachomatis have a higher risk of cervical cancer. Therefore, it is necessary to expand C. trachomatis infection screening and treat women with C. trachomatis promptly, particularly those with human papilloma virus infections. This approach will not only protect against pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility, but may also prevent cervical cancer.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.366 · 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