Species‐level characterization of the cervicovaginal microbiota and its role in human papillomavirus‐associated cervical carcinogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cervicovaginal microbiome may contribute to human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cervical carcinogenesis, but studies have been limited by low-resolution analysis methods. Using a high-resolution bioinformatics pipeline, we evaluated the relationship of the cervicovaginal microbiome with HPV and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). The cervicovaginal microbiome of 186 women was characterized by sequencing 16S rRNA regions (V3-V4 and V5-V6) and annotated with the high-resolution ANCHOR pipeline. Samples were genotyped for HPV using the Roche-Cobas 4800 assay. We fitted logistic regression models using stepwise forward selection to select species (presence/absence) as correlates of CIN1+ and constructed a linear microbiome-based score using the regression coefficients. An HPV-based score was calculated from a separate logistic regression model to detect CIN1+ . Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were performed; the area under the curve (AUC) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were compared between scores. Overall, 66.7% of participants were HPV-positive. 77 unique species were identified: 8 using V3-V4, 48 using V5-V6, and 21 shared. Twelve species were retained via stepwise selection. The AUCs for the microbiome-, and HPV-based scores were 0.7656 (95% CI 0.6885-0.8426), and 0.7529 (95% CI 0.6855-0.8204), respectively. Bacterial species may be involved in cervical carcinogenesis as the microbiome- and HPV-based scores performed similarly for CIN1+ detection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".