Association between tampons and toxic shock syndrome in menstruating women: A systematic review and meta-analysis
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
To determine the association between tampons and toxic shock syndrome (TSS) in menstruating women. We found only case and control Studies. We conducted a search strategy on each of the following databases: MEDLINE through Ovid, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register Center (CENTRAL), and LILACS. Then, we extracted data and assessed the risk of bias by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. We also performed a meta-analysis of the included studies. Of 90 studies evaluated, after debugging the information, six studies were selected, which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Findings in the meta-analysis show that the global estimate of the OR = 19.60; (95% CI: 8.31–46.24) indicates a conclusive significant effect in using tampons as a risk factor in TSS. The study presented a low level of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Also, all studies showed a score greater than three, representing a low risk of bias. Tampons use is considered a risk factor for Toxic Shock Syndrome.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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