Long-term psychosocial impact of alternative management policies in women with low-grade abnormal cervical cytology referred for colposcopy: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The debate continues regarding the best management for women with low-grade abnormal cervical cytology attending colposcopy. We compared psychosocial outcomes of alternative management policies in these women. METHODS: In all, 989 women, aged 20-59 years, with low-grade abnormal cytology, were randomised to immediate large loop excision (LLETZ) or two to four targeted punch biopsies taken immediately with recall for LLETZ if these showed cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia 2/3. At 6 weeks after the last procedure, women completed the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) and the impact of event scale (IES). At 12, 18, 24 and 30 months post recruitment, women completed the HADS and process outcome specific measure (POSM). Prevalence of significant depression (≥ 8), significant anxiety (≥ 11) and distress (≥ 9) and median POSM scores were compared between arms. Multivariate odds ratios (ORs) for immediate LLETZ vs biopsy and recall were computed. RESULTS: Over the entire follow-up, there was no significant difference between arms in cumulative prevalence or risk of significant depression (OR=0.78, 95% CI 0.52-1.17) or significant anxiety (OR=0.83, 95% CI 0.57-1.19). At 6 weeks post procedure, distress did not differ significantly between arms. At later time points, 8-11% had significant depression and 14-16% had significant anxiety but with no differences between arms. The POSM scores did not differ between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in long- or short-term psychosocial outcomes of immediate LLETZ and punch biopsies with selective recall.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".