Effects of Gel Lubricant on Cervical Cytology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of lubricating gel during vaginal speculum examination affected cytologic interpretation in the conventional Pap smear. STUDY DESIGN: Two consecutive cervical smears were obtained from 1334 patients undergoing Pap smear screening. The first smear (uncontaminated) was obtained using the routine collection technique. The second smear (gel-contaminated) was taken after applying a 1- to 1.5-cm ribbon of lubricating gel onto the external cervical os. Adequacy of Pap smear and discordance in diagnosis between the paired smears were examined. RESULTS: The proportion of unsatisfactory smears was significantly higher in the gel-contaminated smears, 12.1% vs. 1.7% (p < 0.01). This difference was consistent across all reproductive groups. For patients who had smears satisfactory for cytologic evaluation, the discordance in cytologic diagnosis between the gel-contaminated and uncontaminated smears from the same patient was 0.3%. CONCLUSION: Lubricating gel contamination of the cervix can adversely affect adequacy and cytologic diagnosis in the conventional Pap smear.
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 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".