MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296477303 · doi:10.1097/pcr.0000000000000523

Chronic Endometritis: Diagnostic Considerations in Patients With Infertility

2022· article· en· W4296477303 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueAJSP Review and Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive System and Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfertilityMedicineEndometritisPelvic inflammatory diseaseAsymptomaticSubclinical infectionGynecologyCutoffDiseaseAssisted reproductive technologyPregnancyInternal medicineObstetricsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chronic endometritis (CE) is a controversial clinical and pathological entity. Although the presence of plasma cells (PCs) is the most frequently used diagnostic criterion for CE, the minimal diagnostic criteria remain controversial and undefined. The clinical setting of CE (asymptomatic, pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility) is an important consideration regarding the clinical significance of endometrial PCs. In the setting of infertility, specifically recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), CE may have a negative impact on endometrial receptivity, resulting in higher rates of implantation failure. The proposed pathophysiology is that a subclinical intrauterine infection alters the local inflammatory milieu resulting in a shift of the normal inflammatory cell profiles toward responses associated with implantation failure and poorer reproductive outcomes. Cure rates following antibiotic treatment are reported to be high (up to 90%). The results of meta-analyses describing the effect of CE on reproductive outcomes are mixed. There is evidence supporting CE as a treatable factor with improved reproductive outcomes following treatment and there are also results showing no differences in reproductive outcomes. Variable diagnostic criteria for CE, inclusion criteria, and treatment regimens between studies are the main limitations, hampering the ability to compare results across studies. Results regarding the optimal diagnostic criteria in the setting of RIF and RPL are also variable, with some authors recommending a cutoff of 1 or more CD138 + PCs per high-power field and some recommending a cutoff of 5 or more CD138 + PCs per high-power field. There are some studies indicating CE as a negative prognostic factor in patients with RIF and RPL, which may be reversible with antibiotic treatment. The optimal diagnostic criteria for CE in this clinical setting are undefined. For the investigation of infertility patients whom clinicians intend to treat, a descriptive diagnosis (indicating the presence/number of PCs and method of identification) is a reasonable approach. Routine use of CD138 immunohistochemistry is of limited value for the diagnosis of CE.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Review

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAJSP Review and ReportsSame topicReproductive System and PregnancyFrench-language works237,207