Cost-Effectiveness Studies on Cervical Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cost-effectiveness analyses are an important source of information for the design and evaluation of policies to reduce cervical cancer. This paper describes the recommendations of a panel on cost-effectiveness studies convened as part of the International Consensus Conference on the Fight Against Cervical Cancer. Recommendations for cost-effectiveness studies include: (1) the use of reference case methods to support comparisons across studies, (2) the use of a consistent standard of evidence on the clinical effectiveness of different screening strategies, (3)further research into the costs and effectiveness of different screening and treatment strategies for cervical cancer, (4) further research into screening and treatment strategies in a wide range of countries, (5) easily accessible and detailed descriptions of the methods and supplementary analyses underlying published studies, (6) greater use of newly developed models of cervical cancer, and (7) greater revelation of potential conflict of interest by researchers.
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 | 0.034 | 0.159 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".