Restriction of human papillomavirus DNA testing in primary cervical screening to women above age 30
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cervical screening with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is less specific for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (≥CIN3) than cytology. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether a restriction of HPV testing to women aged at least 30 years would eliminate the problem. On the basis of the data from randomized controlled trials, we calculated the relative detection of CIN1 and CIN2, and the relative risks of false-positive tests (positive tests without subsequent ≥CIN3) per age group and trial for HPV testing versus cytology. For women aged at least 30 years in trials with a low cytology abnormality rate, detection of CIN1 increased significantly by 50-90% in the two trials with reported data; detection of CIN2 was doubled in three trials; the risks of false-positive HPV tests were also doubled. In trials with a high cytology abnormality rate, these risks were similar for HPV testing and cytology. Adverse effects of HPV testing were for both types of cytology settings, generally higher for women below than above the age of 30. Adverse effects were less common among women aged at least 30 years than among younger women. However, in older women HPV testing still led to more CIN1/CIN2 diagnoses and false-positive tests than cytology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".