MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090400964 · doi:10.3402/ijch.v63i0.17901

Human papillomavirus and cervical dysplasia in Nunavut: prelude to a screening strategy

2004· article· en· W2090400964 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sylvia Healey, Kristan J. Aronson, Yang Mao, Eduardo L. Franco

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaMcGill UniversityQueen's UniversityGovernment of Nunavut
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman papillomavirusDysplasiaMedicineCytologyPap testGynecologyCervical cancerCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaSquamous intraepithelial lesionPapillomaviridaeObstetricsCervical cancer screeningInternal medicinePathologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of oncogenic human papillomavirus' (HPV) in Nunavut and to assess the association between HPV and squamous intraepithelial lesions (SIL) as a prelude to planning a better screening strategy. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted on the Pap-screened populations in 19 communities in Nunavut, Canada. SIL was determined using Liquid-based cytology, and HPV testing was done using the Hybrid Capture II assay. RESULTS: Prevalence of oncogenic HPVs in 1,290 women ages 13-79 was 26% and of Cervical Dysplasia was 7.2%. Over 90% of women with SIL had positive HPV tests. Over 75% of women who were HPV positive but SIL negative were under 30 years of age. CONCLUSION: Consideration should be given to using liquid-based cytology for Pap testing. Also consider concurrent HPV testing in those over 30 years old and reflex testing of HPV in those under 30 years old with a positive HPV test.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.367 · 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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207