MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986222762 · doi:10.1177/0956462413481527

Anal intraepithelial neoplasia: review and recommendations for screening and management

2013· review· en· W1986222762 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of STD & AIDS · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal and Anal Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnal cancerMedicinePapanicolaou stainAnal CarcinomaMalignancyIntraepithelial neoplasiaGynecologyMen who have sex with menCancerCancer screeningCervical cancerDermatologyInternal medicineSyphilisFamily medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Prostate cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anal cancer is a rare malignancy of the distal gastrointestinal tract, often associated with human papillomavirus, the most common sexually transmitted infection worldwide. Currently available screening methods for anal intraepithelial neoplasia, a precursor for anal cancer, combine anal Papanicolaou cytology and high resolution anoscopy with biopsy of suspicious lesions. Significant barriers to establishing anal cancer screening programmes include the small number of healthcare professionals performing high resolution anoscopy and the lack of data showing that anal cancer screening can reduce morbidity and mortality related to anal carcinoma. Despite several controversies surrounding anal cancer screening, the rising incidence of this disease in some groups supports routine screening programmes in high-risk populations, especially in HIV-positive men who have sex with men. This review outlines the epidemiology of anal intraepithelial neoplasia and anal cancer and summarizes issues related to the introduction of anal cancer screening programmes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it