MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388661926 · doi:10.1097/lgt.0000000000000780

Is Vulvodynia Associated With an Altered Vaginal Microbiota?: A Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4388661926 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Koray Görkem Saçıntı, Hosna Razeghian, Yaseen Awad-Igbaria, Joana Lima‐Silva, Eilam Palzur, Pedro Vieira‐Baptista, Hans Verstraelen, Jacob Bornstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lower Genital Tract Disease · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVulvodyniaVaginal infectionsDermatologyGynecologyObstetricsPelvic painSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Vulvodynia is defined as vulvar pain of at least 3 months' duration, without clear identifiable cause, which may have potential associated factors. It can have a significant impact on women's quality of life due to a combination of physical pain, emotional distress, and limited treatment options. Despite affecting a considerable number of women worldwide, the causes and underlying mechanisms of vulvodynia remain poorly understood. Given the recognized association of the vaginal microbiota with various gynecologic disorders, there has been growing interest in exploring the potential role of the vaginal microbiota in the etiology of vulvodynia. This systematic review aims to evaluate the current literature on the association between the vaginal microbiota and vulvodynia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic search of multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Ovid MEDLINE, was conducted to identify relevant peer-reviewed studies up to May 12, 2023. The following search terms were used across these databases: "vulvodynia," "vestibulodynia," "vulvar vestibulitis," "microbiome," "microbiota," and "flora." RESULTS: A total of 8 case-control studies were included, the quality of which was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data extraction and synthesis were performed using a standardized protocol. In most studies, no major differences were found between the vaginal bacterial composition of women with vulvodynia and that of controls. No specific bacterial taxa were consistently associated with vulvodynia. The relationship between vaginal microbiota diversity and vulvodynia remains to be fully understood. CONCLUSIONS: The role of vaginal microbiota in vulvodynia, if any, remains unclear. Because of the cross-sectional nature of the included studies, it is not possible to make any causal inferences. Further research, using larger and more diverse study populations and advanced sequencing techniques, is necessary to gain a better understanding of the potential relationship between the vaginal microbiota and vulvodynia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.008
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lower Genital Tract DiseaseSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207