Human Papillomaviruses and Vulvar Vestibulitis
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
In Brief Objective To assess the relationship between human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and vulvar vestibulitis syndrome. Methods From November 1995 to December 1997, 135 women with vulvar vestibulitis were compared with 322 controls who had no evidence of vulvar vestibulitis. Human papillomavirus DNA was amplified by polymerase chain reaction and detected with liquid-capture molecular assay. Results Human papillomavirus DNA was found in 29.6% of cases and in 23.9% of controls (relative risk [RR] 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] .8, 2.2). The prevalence of HPV tended to decrease with increasing duration of pain among cases. Thus, prevalences were 37.5%, 29.6%, and 22.0% for pain durations of 3–6 months, 7–12 months, and 13–24 months, respectively (P = .14). Prevalence of HPV also tended to increase with pain intensity among cases, but that association was not statistically significant (P = .57). Prevalence percentages for women with low, moderate, or severe pain were 27.5%, 28.8%, and 34.4%, respectively. Prevalence of HPV was slightly higher in cases with the most severe pain (34.4%) than in controls (23.9%) (RR 1.8; 95% CI .8, 4.0). In cases with the most pain in the shortest time (3–6 months), prevalence of HPV was double that of controls (50% versus 23.9%) (RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.0, 12.7; P = .054). Conclusion There was little support for the idea that HPV might be related to vulvar vestibulitis. There is no significant association between human papillomaviruses and vulvar vestibulitis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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