MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035298421 · doi:10.1258/096914107782066158

Assessing the gain in diagnostic performance when two visual inspection methods are combined for cervical cancer prevention

2007· article· en· W2035298421 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Screening · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsMedicineColposcopyCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaCervical cancerVisual inspectionGynecologyCancerObstetricsConfidence intervalLikelihood ratios in diagnostic testingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study was to establish whether combined screening with visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and Lugol's iodine (VILI) improves detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2-3 (CIN 2-3) lesions and cancer beyond chance, compared with screening with VIA alone or VILI alone; and to estimate the extra number of false-positive (FP) results per additional disease case found with the combined test, and to estimate the additional costs involved. SETTING: Ten cross-sectional studies in Burkina Faso, Congo, Guinea, India, Mali and Niger, between 1999 and 2003. METHODS: Using a common protocol, health workers screened 56,147 women aged 25-65 years with VIA and VILI. All women underwent a colposcopy examination and biopsies were taken when necessary. The disease reference standard was histology or negative colposcopy. A positive result on the combined test was defined if either VIA or VILI were positive. The accuracy of the combined test compared with VIA alone or VILI alone was evaluated using likelihood ratios. RESULTS: The estimated sensitivity and specificity were 81.3% and 87.3%, respectively, for VIA; 91.5% and 86.9% for VILI; and 92.9% and 83.5% for the combined test. The ratio of the positive likelihood ratios of the combined test and VIA alone for CIN 2-3 lesions and cancer was 0.88 (95% confidense interval [CI]: 0.86-0.90), favouring use of VIA alone. The ratio of the negative likelihood ratios was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.37-0.47), favouring use of the combined test. Similar results were obtained when the combined test was compared with VILI alone. Assuming equivalent performance of VIA alone and the combined test with a disease prevalence of 2%, there will be about 16.0 (95% CI: 13.6-18.8) additional FPs for each additional true positive (TP) detected if the combined test is used. This number will be 121.1 (95% CI: 75.4-194.6) if VILI is considered as the single test. CONCLUSIONS: At the trade-off point between the combined test and VIA alone or VILI alone, given the numbers of additional FP results involved for each additional TP case of disease that were found, it would be more likely that settings already using VIA would advocate combined testing, and for settings using VILI to opt for the single test. The additional costs (per 1000 women) incurred with the combined test would be International 4117.68 dollars versus either of the tests above.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.424 · 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