The Quality of Community Colposcopic Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the quality of community colposcopic practice in British Columbia through an assessment of the degree of correlation between colposcopy, cytology, and histology. METHOD: We reviewed all new-patient colposcopies in British Columbia during 2001 by 37 gynecologists in 24 hospital-based clinics. RESULTS: Colposcopic impression closely mirrored the referral cytology diagnosis in 89.8% of cases. As with cytology-biopsy comparisons, discordant cases were more likely to be overestimates of disease rather than underestimates, 18.8% versus 1.8%. Overestimates were usually biopsy sampling errors rather than false positive cytology. The overall correlation between cytology and biopsy was considered satisfactory in 79.4% of cases. Satisfactory agreement between the colposcopic diagnosis and accompanying biopsies occurred in 86.8% of patients. Five colposcopists had performance scores below this standard. Colposcopy with a sensitivity of 90.3% and a specificity of 57.3% as practiced in this provincial program would appear to be of a satisfactory level. The rate of intraepithelial or invasive disease increased from 40.6% in patients with low-grade squamous intraepithelial changes to 91.9% in patients with suspicious or malignant cytology. The value of the colposcopic impression to identify disease correlated best with the higher the grade of disease predicted (64.6% to 92.6%). CONCLUSION: A measure of the colposcopic proficiency in the community can be estimated by comparing the level of agreement between the presenting cytology, colposcopic impression, and corresponding directed biopsies. The results of this study would indicate that 5 individuals had practice standards that were below average. An integrated cytology-colposcopy program facilitates the assessment and identification of below-average practice standards in a community.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".