MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039692957 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2014.00027

Using Community Engagement to Inform and Implement a Community-Randomized Controlled Trial in the Anishinaabek Cervical Cancer Screening Study

2014· article· en· W2039692957 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brianne Wood, Ann N. Burchell, Nicholas Escott, Julian Little, Marion Maar, Gina Ogilvie, Alberto Severini, Lisa Bishop, Kyla Morrisseau, Ingeborg Zehbe

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityBC Centre for Disease ControlLakehead UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCervical cancerParticipatory action researchMedicinePopulationCommunity engagementHealth equityHealth careRandomized controlled trialPopulation healthFamily medicinePublic healthCommunity healthNursingCancerPublic relationsEnvironmental healthSociologyPolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social, political, and economic factors are directly and indirectly associated with the quality and distribution of health resources across Canada. First Nations (FN) women in particular, endure a disproportionate burden of ill health in contrast to the mainstream population. The complex relationship of health, social, and historical determinants are inherent to increased cervical cancer in FN women. This can be traced back to the colonial oppression suffered by Canadian FN and the social inequalities they have since faced. Screening - the Papinacolaou (Pap) test - and early immunization have rendered cervical cancer almost entirely preventable but despite these options, FN women endure notably higher rates of diagnosis and mortality due to cervical cancer. The Anishinaabek Cervical Cancer Screening Study (ACCSS) is a participatory action research project investigating the factors underlying the cervical cancer burden in FN women. ACCSS is a collaboration with 11 FN communities in Northwest Ontario, Canada, and a multidisciplinary research team from across Canada with expertise in cancer biology, epidemiology, medical anthropology, public health, virology, women's health, and pathology. Interviews with healthcare providers and community members revealed that prior to any formal data collection education must be offered. Consequently, an educational component was integrated into the existing quantitative design of the study: a two-armed, community-randomized trial that compares the uptake of two different cervical screening modalities. In ACCSS, the Research Team integrates community engagement and the flexible nature of participatory research with the scientific rigor of a randomized controlled trial. ACCSS findings will inform culturally appropriate screening strategies, aiming to reduce the disproportionate burden of cervical disease in concert with priorities of the partner FN communities.

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)0.107
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.124
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1070.124
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207