MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093060092 · doi:10.1080/01443610802259977

Correlation of cervical cytology and visual inspection with acetic acid in HIV-positive women

2008· article· en· W2093060092 on OpenAlexfundno aff
A. L. Akinwuntan, Olufisayo Adeyemi Adesina, CA Okolo, Olayiwola Oluwasola, A Oladokun, Anthonia Ifeyinwa Ifemeje, I F Adewole

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterStop Cancer
KeywordsMedicineSquamous intraepithelial lesionCytologyCervixHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)BiopsyGynecologyPredictive valuePositive predicative valueCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaPredictive value of testsGastroenterologyObstetricsInternal medicinePathologyCervical cancerImmunologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of squamous intraepithelial lesion is higher among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive women. These lesions when they occur in these patients are also more difficult to treat. A total of 205 consenting HIV-seropositive women were recruited. A cervical cytology (Pap smear) was taken, followed by visual inspection with freshly prepared 5% acetic acid and cervical biopsy taken from the squamocolumnar junction as the reference for diagnosis to avoid verification bias. The sensitivity of VIA was 76.0% (95% CI 52.0-91.0); specificity 83.0% (95% CI 77.0-88.0); positive predictive value 34.0% (95% CI 21.0-49.0). The sensitivity of cervical cytology (Pap smear) was 57.0% (95% CI 34.0-77.0), specificity of 95.0% (95% CI 90.0-97.0), and positive predictive value of 55.0% (95% CI 33.0-75.0). In HIV-seropositive women, the sensitivity of VIA is 76.0%, making it a useful screening test for preinvasive lesion of the cervix in low resource settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations42
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and GynaecologySame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207