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 OpenAlex
Koray Görkem Saçıntı, Hosna Razeghian, Yaseen Awad-Igbaria, Joana Lima‐Silva, Eilam Palzur, Pedro Vieira‐Baptista, Hans Verstraelen, Jacob Bornstein

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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