A cross‐sectional study comparing the inflammatory profile of menstrual effluent vs. peripheral blood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Cytokine profiles of peripheral blood and other bodily fluids provide diagnostic indicators for assessing inflammatory processes. Menstrual effluent may provide a noninvasive source of biological material for monitoring cytokine levels in blood and in endometrial tissues. This pilot study investigated the potential of measuring cytokines in menstrual effluent, and compared the cytokine profiles of menstrual versus peripheral blood. Methods: Seven healthy donors (aged ≥18 and ≤45 years) collected menstrual effluent on day 2 of menses. Matched peripheral blood samples were collected by venous blood draw on the same day. Levels of 62 cytokines were measured in all samples by 62-plex Luminex assay. Results: = 0.033) were significantly positively correlated between matched menstrual and peripheral blood samples. Conclusion: In this group of study participants, the cytokine profile of menstrual effluent was quantitatively distinct from peripheral blood, and also characterized by higher levels of inflammatory signaling. This pattern of comparative menstrual blood cytokine profiles points to a need for further studies to evaluate the relationship between peripheral and menstrual blood cytokines in broader populations including both healthy and diseased states.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".