MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027351354 · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.03.019

Results of a community‐based cervical cancer screening pilot project using human papillomavirus self‐sampling in Kampala, Uganda

2013· article· en· W2027351354 on OpenAlexaff
Gina Ogilvie, Sheona Mitchell, Musa Sekikubo, Christine Biryabarema, Josaphat Byamugisha, José Jerónimo, Dianne Miller, Malcolm Steinberg, Deborah Money

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColposcopyCervical cancerOutreachChlamydia trachomatisGynecologyObstetricsHuman papillomavirusCervical cancer screeningFamily medicineCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility of a community-based screening program using human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling in a low-income country with a high burden of cervical cancer. METHODS: A pilot study was conducted among 205 women aged 30-69years in the Kisenyi district of Kampala, Uganda, from September 5 to October 30, 2011. Women were invited to provide a self-collected specimen for high-risk oncogenic HPV testing by outreach workers at their homes and places of gathering in their community. Specimens were tested for HPV, Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis. Women who tested positive for HPV were referred for colposcopy, biopsy, and treatment at a regional hospital. RESULTS: Of the 199 women who provided a specimen, 35 (17.6%) tested positive for HPV. The outreach workers were able to provide results to 30 women (85.7%). In all, 26 (74.3%) of the women infected with HPV attended their colposcopy appointments and 4 (11.4%) women were diagnosed with grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. CONCLUSION: Self-collection of samples for community-based HPV testing was an acceptable option; most women who tested positive attended for definitive treatment. Self-sampling could potentially allow for effective recruitment to screening programs in limited-resource settings.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations59
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207