A cross-sectional analysis about bacterial vaginosis, high-risk human papillomavirus infection, and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in Chinese women

[Scholarpat]

A cross-sectional analysis about bacterial vaginosis, high-risk human papillomavirus infection, and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in Chinese women https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35459771/

I find this cross-sectional analysis interesting as it addresses a prevalent issue among women.

[Analyst-Joan]

This Sounds Quite Interesting @Scholarpat Please can I be assigned this paper for curation? @SvetlanaUP @cmirzayi

[Analyst-Joan]

Thank you @SvetlanaUP

[Analyst-Joan]

Good afternoon @SvetlanaUP This Study has been curated and is ready for review at Study_1029

[Scholarpat]

Hello @SvetlanaUP, I'll love to give this curation a review. May I?

[SvetlanaUP]

Sure! @Scholarpat

[Scholarpat]

Hi @Analyst-Joan,

Great job on your curation! I must confess, this is actually one tricky curation. Here are my observations and suggestions;

• For body site, samples collected were cervical and vaginal secretions. Cervical mucus seems like a closer term for cervical secretions than Uterine cervix.

• There are 10 experiments with alpha diversities but without signatures which are the 10 experiments you curated. For the signatures, however, the LEfSe result was presented as one against all which I think should be curated as: a. Normal & HPV (group 0) vs. BV (group 1) Red bars are increased b. Normal & BV (group 0) vs. HPV (group 1) Green bar is increased c. Normal (group 0) vs. BV & HPV(group 1) Blue bars are decreased You merged these 3 experiments with those of the alpha diversities (exp. 1, 2 and 3) which I believe should be different.

Although, I'm unsure if its entirely necessary to curate 10 experiments without signatures though. If just the three with signatures should be curated instead... 🤔

Well done on your curation. Looking forward to hear your views on these points

[SvetlanaUP]

Hi @Analyst-Joan, excellent curation!

Today at the team meeting we discussed @Scholarpat's comments and we agreed: our curation is focused on recording signatures rather than only alpha diversity.

In this case we will of course record your efforts in curating alpha diversity but for future curation we will put our curation efforts in recording only experiments with signatures.

Please do make corrections (following the comment above) and let me know when it's finalized. Thanks!

[Analyst-Joan]

Thanks for your feedback @Scholarpat.

• For the body site, Cervical mucus, refers specifically to, "A substance produced by the cervix and endocervical glands[BTO]. Thick acidic mucus that blocks the cervical os after mestruation[WP]. This 'infertile' mucus blocks spermatozoa from entering the uterus." Cervical secretions, however, is a broader term and are mostly collected from the cervix, hence while I chose Uterine cervix, which is the most closest term to cervix, the site of collection. Also, cervical mucus is not the only possible cervical secretion collected during research aimed at determining the correlation between Bacterial Vaginosis (BV), Human Papillomavirus (HPV), and Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN) development. Do you still feel otherwise?

• For the experiments, I understand that the LEfSe result was presented as one against all. I used the approach I did based on the alpha diversity measures contrasts. However, I have separated the experiments and added the alpha diversity own separately as suggested.

Thanks for the update too @SvetlanaUP, future curation will focus on recording only experiments with signatures.

[Scholarpat]

Well done once again @Analyst-Joan. I understand the body site more clearly now. Thank you 😊.

[Analyst-Joan]

Alright @Scholarpat @SvetlanaUP Corrections have been finalized

[SvetlanaUP]

https://bugsigdb.org/Study_1029 is reviewed.