Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical Papanicolaou (Pap) smear screening is an effective method of detecting cytological changes in the cervix before they lead to cervical cancer. However, the quality of a Pap smear can be compromised by inflammatory exudate, inadequate cellularity or failure to sample the transformation zone. We evaluated the effect of routine cervical cleaning on Pap smear quality. METHODS: In a primary care setting, we compared the quality of Pap smears obtained after cervical cleaning (with a dry, oversized cotton swab) with the quality of historical control slides obtained from the same women without prior cervical cleaning. The results for both groups were then compared with statistical averages for the province of British Columbia. RESULTS: Inflammatory exudate was reported in 1 (0.3%) of the 334 study smears and 72 (11.0%) of the 652 control smears (p < 0.001). Inadequate endocervical or metaplastic squamous cells were reported in 11 (3.3%) of the study smears and 90 (13.8%) of the control smears (p < 0.001). Inadequate cellularity was reported in 13 (3.9%) of the study smears and 9 (1.4%) of the control smears (p = 0.01). There were similar statistical differences between the study group and provincial averages. The results for the control group did not differ significantly from provincial averages (inflammatory exudate, 11.3%; inadequate endocervical cells, 14.7%; and poor cellularity, 2.7%). INTERPRETATION: Prior cervical cleaning with an oversized cotton swab was associated with a lower frequency of smears with inflammatory exudate or inadequate endocervical cells and, to a lesser degree, a higher frequency of smears with inadequate cellularity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".