MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009744225 · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmaa002

Early life factors for endometriosis: a systematic review

2020· review· en· W3009744225 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karolína Olšarová, Gita D. Mishra

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction Update · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndometriosisMedicineCohort studySystematic reviewQuality of life (healthcare)ScopusCohortMEDLINEPediatricsGynecologyPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite its high prevalence and health burden, many aspects of endometriosis remain unclear, including risk factors and the underlying biological mechanisms. Exposures during early life, including in utero, are thought to play an important role in the subsequent onset of the condition. To date, however, much of the evidence from studies on early life exposures and diagnosed endometriosis appears mixed and difficult to assess. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This study aims to provide a systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence on early life factors associated with the subsequent diagnosis of endometriosis. In utero and early life exposures have previously been linked to a range of adult health outcomes, including infertility. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic review of case-control, cross-sectional and cohort studies was conducted using the search terms 'endometriosis'[MeSH] AND ('risk factors'[MeSH] OR 'protective factors'[MeSH]) AND ('in utero', 'fetal', 'neonatal, 'perinatal', 'developmental origins', 'early life', 'childhood' OR 'life course') in Embase, PubMed and Scopus databases. The review included articles published in English until 10 June 2018 with original data from studies with diagnosed endometriosis. The quality of primary studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale by both authors independently. Due to the degree of inconsistency in the measurements and study methods, a qualitative assessment of findings was undertaken rather than meta-analysis. OUTCOMES: The search retrieved 70 records without duplicates that contained 20 records on human case-control, cross-sectional or cohort studies, from which 11 papers/studies were selected based on their assessment score. The majority of studies found that women born with low birthweight (<2.5 kg or <5.5 lb) were more likely to be diagnosed with endometriosis. For other early life factors, the evidence is mixed or limited, with further research needed on the association of endometriosis with preterm birth, in utero exposure to diethylstilbestrol and to maternal smoking, passive smoking in early life, and infant formula feeding (compared with breastfeeding). WIDER IMPLICATIONS: While the weight of evidence points to low birthweight as a risk factor for diagnosis of endometriosis, future research is warranted on this and other key early life exposures where the findings are mixed to provide more robust evidence and for insights on potential causal pathways. Such research, however, needs to address current methodological issues, such as the use of prospective data from large population-based studies, better diagnostic methods to confirm disease free status, more consistent definitions of variables and consideration of potential biological mechanisms to guide the analyses. The improvements will advance the future synthesis of evidence to support clinically relevant risk assessment for a more timely diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations50
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Reproduction UpdateSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207