Improvement in the routine screening performance of cytotechnologists over time
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Documenting the performance of gynecologic screening in actual practice settings is difficult to achieve. In the current study, the screening performance of 11 individual cytotechnologists as well as that of the overall laboratory over 2 consecutive time periods was examined using the rapid prescreening (RPS) method. METHODS: RPS was performed by all cytotechnologists in a single laboratory over 2 separate 8-month periods. The sensitivity of screening for individual and groups of cytotechnologists was examined. For purposes of comparison, cytotechnologists were divided into 2 groups: screeners with an overall routine sensitivity >or=95% and screeners with an overall sensitivity <95%. RESULTS: Atypical squamous cells (ASC) were used as a threshold, and routine screening sensitivity was found to vary from 68.3% to 96.8%. The overall sensitivity of the laboratory for RPS and routine screening was 43.6% and 88.4%, respectively. Over time, the overall laboratory sensitivity of routine screening improved from 85.3% to 91.3% (P = .01). During this same time frame, the sensitivity of the screeners with an overall sensitivity <95% improved from 79.3% to 91.2% (P < .001), whereas the sensitivity of screeners with an overall routine sensitivity >or=95% remained the same (96.1% to 96.4%; P = .6). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to improved overall performance of the laboratory by detecting and correcting errors, the results of the current study indicate that using RPS consistently over time might play a role leading to improved performance of cytotechnologists with an overall routine sensitivity <95% but not of cytotechnologists with an overall routine sensitivity >or=95%.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it