MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409152104 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-96682-4

Poly-sialylated glycan of cervicovaginal fluid can be a potential marker of preterm birth

2025· article· en· W4409152104 on OpenAlexaff
Yoon-Young Go, Gun Wook Park, Young Min Hur, Young‐Ah You, Ga‐In Lee, Rin Chae, Soo-Min Kim, Sunwha Park, Young Ju Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPreterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersKorea Health Industry Development InstituteEwha Womans University
KeywordsGlycanObstetricsMedicineBiologyBiochemistryGlycoprotein

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preterm birth is a global health issue associated with neonatal death and morbidity. However, current methods of predicting preterm birth are insufficient to accurately screen for risk. This study aimed to assess the potential of site-specific N-glycosylation of cervicovaginal fluid (CVF) proteins as predictive biomarkers of preterm birth in a case-control study. Statistical analysis used Student's t-tests, ROC curve and logistic regression adjusted age and BMI. Using N-glycoproteomic analysis of the CVF, we identified 862 N-glycoproteins in CVF samples form 20 pregnancies and 6595 N-linked glycopeptides used a false discovery rate of less than 1%. Of 173 upregulated glycan in preterm group, we found low levels of fucosylation and high levels of sialylation in preterm birth (p < 0.05). Then we found that three poly-sialylated glycans had a high predictive value (AUC = 0.802, p < 0.017), which were expressed in all samples. In addition, the glycan model with clinical markers performed better. The results indicate that poly-sialylated glycans in CVF have potential value as novel clinical markers for predicting preterm birth during pregnancy. This study suggests strategies for developing new predictive biomarkers using cervicovaginal glycans to detect preterm birth in advance.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicPreterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisFrench-language works237,207