MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009278796 · doi:10.1159/000326174

Natural History of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia

2005· review· en· W2009278796 on OpenAlexaff
Scott B. Cantor, Neely Atkinson, Marylou Cárdenas-Turanzas, J.L. Benedet, Michele Follen, Calum MacAulay

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Cytologica · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineCervical cancerCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaConfidence intervalNatural historyGynecologyCancerOncologyInternal medicineObstetrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the probabilities of transition of stages in the cervical cancer by conducting a meta-studies on the topic. STUDY DESIGN: We identified health states of interest in the natural history of cervical precancer, identified all possible papers that could meet selection criteria, developed relevance and acceptability criteria for inclusion, then thoroughly reviewed the selected studies. To determine the transition probability data we used a random effects model. We determined probabilities for 4 health state transitions. The 6-month mean predictive transition probability (95% confidence intervals with "prediction interval" in parentheses) for high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) to cancer was 0.0037 (0.00004, 0.03386), for low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) to HSIL was 0.0362 (0.00055, 0.23220), for HSIL to LSIL was 0.0282 (0.00027, 0.35782), and for LSIL to normal was 0.0740 (0.00119, 0.42672). CONCLUSION: The transition probabilities between cervical cancer health states for 6-month intervals are small; however, the cumulative risk of cervical cancer is significant. Markers to identify the cervical precursors that will lead to the transition to cervical cancer are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa CytologicaSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207