Risk factors for placental human papillomavirus infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Human papillomavirus (HPV) has been associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes but placental HPV infection has been rarely studied. The objective was to determine the proportion of HPV-positive placentas and the associated risk factors among HPV-positive women during pregnancy. METHODS: We analysed data from pregnant women enrolled in HERITAGE cohort study between 2010 and 2016 with positive vaginal HPV infection during the first trimester of pregnancy (n=354). Placental swabs and biopsies were collected. HPV genotyping was performed using Linear Array. The predictors of placental HPV detection were identified by generalised estimating equations models. RESULTS: HPV was detected in 78 placentas (22.0%) (one among 96 caesarean sections and 77 among 258 vaginal deliveries). Overall, 91% of HPV-positive placentas were positive for a genotype that was detected in vaginal samples during pregnancy. Among women who delivered vaginally, abnormal cytology (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.78 (95% CI 1.02 to 3.10)), other genitourinary infection (aOR 2.41 (95% CI 1.31 to 4.44)), presence of multiple HPV genotypes in the first trimester (aOR 2.69 (95% CI 1.76 to 4.12)) and persistence of high-risk HPV infections during pregnancy (HPV-16/18: aOR 3.94 (95% CI 2.06 to 7.55) and other than HPV-16/18: aOR 2.06 (95% CI 1.05 to 4.02)) were independently associated with placental HPV. CONCLUSIONS: HPV was frequently detected in the placenta of women who delivered vaginally and may be associated with host immune response characteristics.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 teacher head, 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".