Additional file 1 of Quantitative profiling of the vaginal microbiota improves resolution of the microbiota-immune axis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supplementary Material 1: Supplementary methods. Figure S1: Variation in total bacterial load and vaginal soluble immune factors across CST-IV subgroups. Figure S2: BV-associated bacteria drive the association between total bacterial load and immune factors within CST-III. Figure S3: Genital immune milieu cluster tightly with vaginal microbiota composition. Figure S4: Genital immune milieu is closely tied to vaginal microbiota composition in an independent, Uganda-based confirmatory cohort. Table S1: Association between vaginal CST and sociodemographic variables. Table S2: The absolute abundance of BV-associated bacteria, including G. vaginalis and F. vaginae, but not L. iners, were positively associated with sE-cad and IL-1α. Table S3: Nugent scores of women misclassified by the logistic regression model predicting Nugent BV with bacterial load in the SWOP cohort. Table S4: CST subgroups of women misclassified by the logistic regression model predicting molecular BV with bacterial load in the SWOP cohort. Table S5: Comparison of linear regression models predicting soluble immune factors with different vaginal microbiota characterization metrics. Table S6: Comparison of sociodemographic characteristics based on availability of complete immune data in the SWOP cohort. Table S7: Association between PAM immune cluster and sociodemographic variables. Table S8: Sociodemographic factors for Uganda-based confirmatory cohort. N = 61. Table S9: Nugent scores of women misclassified by the logistic regression model predicting Nugent BV with bacterial load in the Uganda-based confirmatory cohort. Table S10: Comparison of linear regression models predicting soluble immune factors with different vaginal microbiota characterization metrics in the confirmatory Uganda-based confirmatory cohort. Table S11: Primer and probe sequences for qPCR assays quantifying total bacterial load.
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 | 0.003 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.831 | 0.196 |
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".