The Usefulness of the Pap Test Taken at the First Colposcopy Examination in the Enhanced Detection of Cervical Neoplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic gain, clinical value, and health benefit of the Pap test taken at the first colposcopy examination by investigating the frequency in which the result of the test was more abnormal than the results of the referral Pap test that triggered the examination, the tissue samples taken at that examination, or both. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The laboratory information system (LIS) was searched for all first colposcopy examinations and their referral Pap tests. The Pap tests and tissue samples were coded for comparability of diagnosis and ranked in ascending order from normal to malignant. The LIS or patient charts, or both, were searched for follow-up information on the more abnormal colposcopy Pap test results. RESULTS: There were 1,633 women having a first colposcopy examination. In 116 (7%), the colposcopy Pap test was more abnormal than the other samples. In 81 (5%), the diagnostic gain was a low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, and in 25 (1.5%), the gain was a clinically valuable high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL). High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (CIN 2,3) or adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) was tissue confirmed in 21 of the 116 women, conferring a health benefit of 1.3% on the colposcopy Pap test. CONCLUSIONS: The health benefit of the Pap test taken at the first colposcopy examination in terms of the increased detection of HSIL (CIN 2,3) or AIS is minimal and the practice could safely be discontinued.
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 | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".