Performance of a New HPV Cervi-Collect Collection and Transportation Kit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Liquid-based Pap (L-Pap) media are used for Pap and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. Objectives. To compare RealTime High Risk (HR) HPV testing of a new collection kit (Cervi-Collect) and PreservCyt L-Pap specimens. To determine ease of use and safety of Cervi-Collect. Methods. L-Pap samples (n = 203) were tested with HC2 and RealTime HR HPV and Cervi-Collect with RealTime HR HPV. Discordant samples were genotyped. Results. L-Pap and Cervi-Collect specimens tested by RealTime HR HPV showed 93.1% agreement (Kappa 0.86). RealTime HR HPV and HC2 on L-Pap had 90.3% agreement (Kappa 0.80). RealTime HR HPV on Cervi-Collect and HC2 on L-Pap showed 88.2% agreement (Kappa 0.76). Sixteen of 21 samples which were HC2 negative and RealTime HR HPV positive on L-Pap or Cervi-Collect contained HR HPV genotypes. Eleven healthcare collectors were in strong agreement on a usability and safety questionnaire. Conclusion. Cervi-Collect samples were easy to collect and showed strong agreement with L-Pap samples tested with RealTime HR HPV or HC2.
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 | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".