Chronic Endometritis and Endometriosis: Two Sides of the Same Coin?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both chronic endometritis and endometriosis are common entities in infertile patients. The association and the co-existence of these two entities are poorly evaluated. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the association between chronic endometritis and endometriosis and to find the prevalence of chronic endometritis in women with endometriosis. A systematic electronic search was conducted using the MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane databases up to May 2022. Observational studies which examined the prevalence of chronic endometritis in women with endometriosis were included. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for the quality assessment. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and pooled prevalences with 95% CIs were calculated. 855 studies were identified, of which six studies were included in the systematic review and five in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of chronic endometritis in women with endometriosis was 28%, with higher frequency observed in women with endometriosis rASRM stage III-IV (43%) in comparison to women with endometriosis rASRM stage I-II (25%). The meta-analysis showed a significantly higher chronic endometritis in women with endometriosis in comparison to the control group (five studies, 264 endometriosis vs. 435 control, OR = 2.07; 95% CI 1.11-3.84, I$^{2}$ 43%, p = 0.02). The present meta-analysis showed a significantly higher risk of chronic endometritis in women with endometriosis in comparison to the control group. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the causes and consequences of endometriosis and chronic endometritis and may help in the development of more efficient treatment strategies for women with associated infertility.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".