Prevalence of self-reported hysterectomy among Canadian women, 2000/2001–2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hysterectomy is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures among Canadian women. The consequence is a population that no longer requires cervical cancer screening. The objective of our analysis was to provide more accurate estimates of eligible participation in cervical screening by estimating the age-specific prevalence of hysterectomy among Canadian women aged 20 to 69 by province and territory between 2000/2001 and 2008. METHODS: Self-reported hysterectomy prevalence was obtained from the 2000/2001, 2003 and 2008 Canadian Community Health Survey. Age-specific prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for Canada and provinces and territories for the three time periods. RESULTS: Interprovincial variations in hysterectomy prevalence were observed among women in each age group and time period. Among women aged 50 to 59, prevalence was as high as 35.1% (95% CI: 25.8-44.3) (p<.01) in 2008 and appeared to decrease in all provinces from 2000/2001 to 2008. CONCLUSION: Interprovincial and time period variation suggest that using hysterectomy prevalence to adjust the population eligible for cervical cancer screening may be helpful to inform more comparable screening participation rates. In addition, both cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates can be adjusted by hysterectomy to ensure estimates across time and provinces and territories are also comparable.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".