The role of endometrial B cells in normal endometrium and benign female reproductive pathologies: a systematic review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION: What are the similarities and differences in endometrial B cells in the normal human endometrium and benign reproductive pathologies? SUMMARY ANSWER: lymphocytes, and no more than 2% of total cells in the normal endometrium, and while their relative abundance and phenotypes vary in benign gynaecological conditions, current evidence is inconsistent. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: B cells are vitally important in the mucosal immune environment and have been extensively characterized in secondary lymphoid organs and tertiary lymphoid structures (TLSs), with the associated microenvironment germinal centre. However, in the endometrium, B cells are largely overlooked, despite the crucial link between autoimmunity and reproductive pathologies and the fact that B cells are present in normal endometrium and benign female reproductive pathologies, scattered or in the form of lymphoid aggregates (LAs). A comprehensive summary of current data investigating B cells will facilitate our understanding of endometrial B cells in the endometrial mucosal immune environment. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This systematic review retrieved relevant studies from four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection and CINAHL) from database inception until November 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The search strategy combined the use of subject headings and relevant text words related to 'endometrium', 'B cells' and B-cell derivatives, such as 'antibody' and 'immunoglobulin'. Non-benign diseases were excluded using cancer-related free-text terms, and searches were limited to the English language and human subjects. Only peer-reviewed research papers were included. Each paper was graded as 'Good', 'Fair' or 'Poor' quality based on the NEWCASTLE-OTTAWA quality assessment scale. Only 'Good' quality papers were included. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: B cells were more abundant in patients with endometritis, but the data were inconsistent as to whether B-cell numbers were increased in endometriosis and patients with reproductive pathologies. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although only 'good' quality papers were included in this systematic review, there were variations in patients' age, diagnostic criteria for different diseases and sample collection time among included studies. Additionally, a large number of the included studies only used immunohistochemistry as the identification method for endometrial B cells, which may fail to provide an accurate representation of the numbers of endometrial B cells. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Histological studies found that endometrial B cells are either scattered or surrounded by T cells in LAs: the latter structure seems to be under hormonal control throughout the menstrual cycle and resembles TLSs that have been observed in other tissues. Further characterization of endometrial B cells and LAs could offer insights to endometrial B-cell function, particularly in the context of autoimmune-associated pathologies, such as endometriosis. Additionally, clinicians should be aware of the limited value of diagnosing plasma cell infiltration using only CD138. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was funded by Finox Biotech. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO in January 2020 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020152915).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it