Management of women with low grade cytology: how reassuring is a normal colposcopy examination?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2+) in women with low grade cervical cytology and a normal colposcopy examination over 3 years of follow-up. DESIGN: Cohort study within a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: NHS Cervical Screening Programmes in Grampian, Tayside and Nottingham. POPULATION: Eight hundred and eighty-four women aged 20-59 years with borderline nuclear abnormalities (BNA) or mild dyskaryosis with a normal and adequate colposcopy examination. METHODS: Samples at baseline were tested for 14 high-risk (Hr) types using GP5+6+ methodology and for HPV 16 and 18 using type-specific primers. Women were followed up post-colposcopy by cervical cytology at 6-month intervals in primary care. After 3 years, women were invited for an exit colposcopy examination and underwent LLETZ if any colposcopic abnormality was identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Absolute and relative risks of CIN2+ during follow-up and/or at exit colposcopy. RESULTS: The median age was 36 years. The absolute risk of developing CIN2+ within 3 years was 1.86 per 100 woman years and for CIN3+, 0.64 per 100 woman years. One microinvasive cancer was identified. The relative risk (RR) was highest for women with initial mild dyskaryosis who were HrHPV-positive (RR 5.86, 95% confidence interval 2.53-13.56) compared with women with BNA who were HrHPV-negative. CONCLUSION: For women with low grade cervical cytology, the risk of a high grade CIN within 3 years of a normal colposcopy examination is low. Women can be reassured that, even with a positive HPV test, the risk of developing CIN2 or worse is sufficiently low to return to the routine 3-year recall.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".