Scoping review of cytolytic vaginosis literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cytolytic vaginosis (CV) is a little-known, controversial condition that is typically not considered for women presenting with vulvovaginitis symptoms. Objective: The objective of this scoping review was to identify and compile the global evidence on CV. METHODS: A medical librarian searched Prospero, Wiley Cochrane Library, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, EBSCO CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and Scopus, from inception to April 4, 2019 and updated to October 17, 2021. Studies were eligible if they discussed CV. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection and data extraction. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies were identified, with 67% of studies (n = 43) published since 2007. Studies were from around the world, including the United States (28%, n = 18), Brazil (11%, n = 7), Portugal (11%, n = 7), and China (11%, n = 7). Fifty percent of studies (n = 32) were reviews; the remainder were observational; and of these, 78% (n = 25) were cross-sectional. The most frequent topics included: diagnosis (19%, n = 12), prevalence (17%, n = 11), and overview of CV (50%, n = 32). Evidence for prevalence in symptomatic women (median prevalence of 5%, interquartile range 3%-8%) was based only on 16% of studies (n = 10) with minimal evidence on prevalence in asymptomatic women and across different geographic regions. Microbiological findings, including abundant lactobacilli and fragmented epithelial cells, were found useful to distinguish between CV and vulvovaginal candidiasis, and Lactobacillus crispatus was noted to dominate the vaginal flora in women with CV. Most studies used subjective criteria to diagnose CV as the condition lacks gold-standard microscopic criteria. The suggested primary treatment (baking soda irrigations) was largely based on expert opinion, and there was minimal evidence on associations between CV and other conditions. CONCLUSION: Knowledge gaps currently exist in all realms of CV research. Additional research is needed to confirm the validity of CV and ensure that women are diagnosed and treated effectively.
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 | 0.026 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.047 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".