ArticleOpen life sciences2024
Highly specific vaginal microbiome signature for gynecological cancers.
Article in Open life sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vaginal microbiota and genitourinary syndrome of menopause in premenopausal breast cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy: a longitudinal cohort study protocol.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The role of the microbiome in gynecological cancers: implications for diagnosis and treatment.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- The microbiome in endometrial cancer: vaginal milieu matters.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the vaginal microbiota signature of patients with gynecologic cancer and evaluate its diagnostic biomarker potential. We incorporated vaginal 16S rRNA-seq data from 529 women and utilized VSEARCH to analyze the raw data. α-Diversity was evaluated utilizing the Chao1, Shannon, and Simpson indices, and β-diversity was evaluated through principal component analysis using Bray-Curtis distances. Linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) was utilized to determine species differences between groups. A bacterial co-abundance network was constructed utilizing Spearman correlation analysis. A random forest model of gynecologic tumor risk based on genus was constructed and validated to test its diagnostic efficacy. In gynecologic cancer patients, vaginal α-diversity was significantly greater than in controls, and vaginal β-diversity was significantly separated from that of controls; there was no correlation between these characteristics and menopause status among the subject women. Women diagnosed with gynecological cancer exhibited a reduction in the abundance of vaginal
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.