Relationship between human papillomavirus and serum vitamin D levels: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most prevalent sexually transmitted diseases worldwide. The present review was conducted to accumulate evidence on the relationship between cervicovaginal human papillomavirus infection and serum vitamin D status. METHODS: Electronic databases including Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and PubMed were searched by different combinations of keywords related to "human papillomavirus" and "vitamin D", obtained from Mesh and Emtree with AND, and OR operators without any time restriction until December 24, 2022. Selection of articles was based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was applied for reporting. RESULTS: In total, 276 citations were retrieved. After removing duplicates, and non-related articles, the full texts of 7 articles were reviewed including 11168 participants. Three studies reported that there was a positive relationship between vitamin D deficiency and cervicovaginal human papillomavirus while three studies did not. One study showed a significant positive association between higher vitamin D stores and short-term high-risk human papillomavirus persistence. CONCLUSIONS: The findings showed no firm evidence for any association between serum vitamin D level and cervicovaginal human papillomavirus infection, although the possible association could not be discarded. Further investigations are needed to reach sound evidence.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".