MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimal Cutoff of the Hybrid Capture II Human Papillomavirus Test for Self-Collected Vaginal, Vulvar, and Urine Specimens in a Colposcopy Referral Population

2003· article· en· W2019526561 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Howard, John W. Sellors, Janusz Kaczorowski, Attila T. Lörincz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lower Genital Tract Disease · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColposcopyReceiver operating characteristicCutoffUrineHybrid captureGynecologyPopulationCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaObstetricsUrologyInternal medicineCervical cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the optimal relative light unit ratio, as a measure of viral load, of the Hybrid Capture II human papillomavirus (HPV) test in self-collected specimens for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). METHODS: Two hundred women referred for colposcopy with abnormal cytologic, self-collected vaginal and vulvar swabs and urine for HPV testing. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve method was used to estimate optimal cutoffs for the Hybrid Capture II test. The reference standard was colposcopy, with directed biopsy as required. RESULTS: The estimated optimal cutoffs of the relative light unit ratio for detecting CIN 2 or higher for urine, vulvar, and vaginal samples gave sensitivities of 72.4%, 82.8%, and 89.0% and specificities of 57.0%, 52.1%, and 55.9%, respectively. At the manufacturer's recommended 1.0 cutoff, sensitivities were 44.8%, 62.1%, and 86.2% for urine, vulvar, and vaginal samples, with specificities of 69.7%, 62.7%, and 53.5%, respectively. The likelihood ratios (likelihood of being truly positive after a positive test result) were similar for the optimal and the 1.0 cutoff. CONCLUSIONS: The ROC curve methods did not improve the overall diagnostic accuracy of the Hybrid Capture II test compared with the 1.0 relative light unit ratio cutoff.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.296 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lower Genital Tract DiseaseSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207