MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Comparison of Colposcopy Using Optical and Video Colposcopes

2000· article· en· W2067910955 on OpenAlexaff
Daron G. Ferris, Tew Hong Ho, Fernando B. Guijon, Michael S. Macfee, Domiciana M. M. Guerra, R Barrasso, Ian D. Duncan, Mark S. Litaker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lower Genital Tract Disease · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColposcopyMedicineBiopsyGynecologyCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaSampling (signal processing)ObstetricsPunch BiopsyRadiologyCervical cancerInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the colposcopic adequacy, colposcopic impressions, histologic sampling intent, biopsy site location, procedural complications, and difficulty of colposcopic examinations using optical and video colposcopes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women and men presenting consecutively for colposcopy were examined independently by two colposcopists using alternately either an optical or video colposcope. Colposcopists individually recorded their exam adequacy, colposcopic impression, biopsy intent and site, procedural complications, and difficulty of examination. Most colposcopists had no prior experience with video colposcopes. RESULTS: Of 300 patients, mean age 35.3 years (±12.2 SD), examined, 29.7% were nulliparous, 4.9% pregnant, 52.5% had a previous biopsy and 34.3% had prior cervical treatment. Agreement between colposcopes was excellent for visualizing the complete squamocolumnar junction (75.6%, x = 6.40, p = 0.09). Colposcopists using the video colposcope had more unsatisfactory exams of the endocervical canal (36.6%, 97/265) than did colposcopists using optical colposcopes (24.9%, 66/265, x = 16.65, p = 0.001). Colposcopic impression agreement with pathology results were not significantly different between the video (58.1%) and optical (57.0%) colposcopes (x = 0.09, p = 0.8). Biopsy intent (79.9% agreement, x = 0.20, p = 0.7) and biopsy site selection by cervical quadrant were not significantly different for the two colposcopes. Both types of colposcopes were rated extremely easy to use, but colposcopy in general (T = 3.97, p < 0.001), visualization (T = 2.98, p = 0.002), assessment (T = 2.76, p = 0.004), and sampling (Wilcoxon = 2.27, p = 0.02) were determined to be easier when using optical colposcopes. CONCLUSIONS: Video colposcopes have similar, clinically relevant outcomes when compared with optical colposcopes. Colposcopists using optical colposcopes reported easier colposcopy exams and fewer unsatisfactory examinations of the endocervical canal. These findings may represent a learning curve effect as colposcopists become familiar with operating the video colposcope.▪.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lower Genital Tract DiseaseSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207