Effect of COVID-19 vaccination on the menstrual cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous anecdotal accounts and qualitative research studies have reported on post-vaccination menstrual irregularities in women of reproductive age. However, none have quantified the impact. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify and characterize the menstrual irregularities associated with vaccination for women of reproductive age. A search on July 20, 2022, retrieved articles published between December 1, 2019, and July 1, 2022, from MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The included articles were studies with full texts written in English that reported on menstrual irregularities for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated women of reproductive age. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Study Quality Assessment Tool for Observation Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Four observational studies were included. Review Manager was used to generating a forest plot with odds ratios (ORs) at the 95% confidence interval (CI), finding statistically significant associations between vaccination and menstrual irregularities for 25,054 women of reproductive age (OR = 1.91, CI: 1.76–2.07) with a significant overall effect of the mean (Z = 16.01, p < 0.0001). The studies were heterogeneous with significant dispersion of values (χ2 = 195.10 at df = 3, p < 0.00001, I2 = 98%). The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis are limited by the availability of quantitative data. The results have implications for treating women of reproductive age with menstrual irregularities and informing them about the potential side effects of vaccinations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".