The Difference of Number Colonies of Lactic Acid Bacteria and Candida albicans on the Cyclofem Contraceptive Injections with Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of this study was to determine the number colonies of Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB) and Candida albicans on the Cyclofem contraceptive injections with Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate (DMPA). Methods: This study conducted cross-sectional study design, this research was conducted in the work area of the Belimbing Health Center and Microbiological Laboratory of the Faculty of Medicine Andalas University, Padang from May 2017 - April 2018. There were 48 samples selected by consecutive sampling, which were divided into 2 groups: 24 DMPA contraception acceptors and 24 cyclofem contraception acceptors. Number of LAB and Candida albicans colonies were examined by the Quebec Colony Counter Forming Unit method. Results: The results of the mean BAL colonies in the DMPA group were 24,94 ± 24,25 x 105 CFU / ml and the cyclofem was 15,00 ± 27,08 x 105 CFU / ml. Statistically obtained p value <0.05 meant that there was a significant difference in lactic acid bacteria (LAB) colonies between DMPA and cyclofem groups. The mean colonies of Candida albicans in the DMPA group were 1.25 ± 3.52 CFU / ml and the cyclofem was 0.75 ± 3.09 CFU / ml. Statistically, p> 0.05 meant that there was no significant difference between the colonies of Candida albicans in the DMPA and cyclofem groups. Conclusion: This study concluded that there was no significant differences between cyclofem and DMPA contraception groups with the incidence of Candida albicans infection.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".