MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035608162 · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603822

Lifestyle and socio-demographic factors associated with high-risk HPV infection in UK women

2007· article· en· W2035608162 on OpenAlexaff
Seonaidh Cotton, Linda Sharp, Rashmi Seth, L. F. Masson, Julian Little, Margaret Cruickshank, Keith Neal, Norman Waugh

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineHuman papillomavirusGynecologyMultivariate analysisObstetricsHPV infectionPregnancyChildbirthYoung adultDemographyCervical cancerGerontologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The world age-standardised prevalence of high-risk HPV (hrHPV) infection among 5038 UK women aged 20-59 years, with a low-grade smear during 1999-2002, assessed for eligibility for TOMBOLA (Trial Of Management of Borderline and Other Low-grade Abnormal smears) was 34.2%. High-risk HPV prevalence decreased with increasing age, from 61% at ages 20-24 years to 14-15% in those over 50 years. The age-standardised prevalence was 15.1, 30.7 and 52.7%, respectively, in women with a current normal, borderline nuclear abnormalities (BNA) and mild smear. In overall multivariate analyses, tertiary education, previous pregnancy and childbirth were associated with reduced hrHPV infection risk. Risk of infection was increased in non-white women, women not married/cohabiting, hormonal contraceptives users and current smokers. In stratified analyses, current smear status and age remained associated with hrHPV infection. Data of this type are relevant to the debate on human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in screening and development of HPV vaccination programmes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations64
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207