Association Between Male Circumcision and Cervical Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Analytical Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cervical cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer and one of the leading causes of death in women. The objective of the current review was to synthesize the available evidence on the association between male circumcision and risk of cervical cancer in females. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, CancerLit, Google Scholar, medRxiv, bioRxiv, UpToDate, TRIP database, and the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global databases to identify relevant articles. We considered research studies that assessed male circumcision status and cervical cancer in females for inclusion. The risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scales. We estimated summary measures of effect and 95% CIs for the odds of developing cervical dysplasia, carcinoma in situ, or invasive cervical cancer in females based on the circumcision status of their male partners. RESULTS: We identified 380 potentially eligible records through systematic database searches. After excluding 278 records on the basis of title and abstract screening, 102 full-text records were assessed for eligibility. We included 19 studies in the final analysis. The risk-of-bias assessment revealed a low risk across 10 records. Male circumcision was associated with decreased odds of cervical cancer (odds ratio [OR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.79]). Circumcision was also associated with decreased odds of developing Invasive cervical cancer (OR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.51 to 0.99]), cervical dysplasia (OR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.92]), and carcinoma in situ cervix (OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.90]). CONCLUSION: Male circumcision has been found to be associated with lower odds of developing various cervical lesions, suggesting its prophylactic potential. Understanding the effects of male circumcision on human papillomavirus (HPV) infection would have important implications for studies of HPV transmission, leading to a better understanding of the pathogenesis of cervical cancer.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".