Environmental scan of anal cancer screening practices: worldwide survey results
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anal squamous cell carcinoma is rare in the general population but certain populations, such as persons with HIV, are at increased risk. High-risk populations can be screened for anal cancer using strategies similar to those used for cervical cancer. However, little is known about the use of such screening practices across jurisdictions. Data were collected using an online survey. Health care professionals currently providing anal cancer screening services were invited to complete the survey via email and/or fax. Information was collected on populations screened, services and treatments offered, and personnel. Over 300 invitations were sent; 82 providers from 80 clinics around the world completed the survey. Fourteen clinics have each examined more than 1000 patients. Over a third of clinics do not restrict access to screening; in the rest, eligibility is most commonly based on HIV status and abnormal anal cytology results. Fifty-three percent of clinics require abnormal anal cytology prior to performing high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) in asymptomatic patients. Almost all clinics offer both anal cytology and HRA. Internal high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) is most often treated with infrared coagulation (61%), whereas external high-grade AIN is most commonly treated with imiquimod (49%). Most procedures are performed by physicians, followed by nurse practitioners. Our study is the first description of global anal cancer screening practices. Our findings may be used to inform practice and health policy in jurisdictions considering anal cancer screening.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 it