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 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

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.

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)0.047
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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