MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101853110 · doi:10.1111/cyt.12173

A normal colposcopy examination fails to provide psychological reassurance for women who have had low‐grade abnormal cervical cytology

2014· article· en· W2101853110 on OpenAlexaff
Seonaidh Cotton, Linda Sharp, Julian Little, Nicola Gray, Liz Walker, David K. Whynes, Margaret Cruickshank

Bibliographic record

VenueCytopathology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineColposcopyAnxietyHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleDepression (economics)ObstetricsCervical cancerCytologyCohortGynecologyCancerPsychiatryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Worldwide, each year, large numbers of women are referred for colposcopy following low-grade abnormal cervical cytology. Many have no visible abnormality on examination. The risk of cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 (CIN2/3) in these women is low. It is unknown whether, for women, a normal colposcopy resolves the anxiety which often follows the receipt of an abnormal cytology result. We investigated the prevalence of adverse psychological outcomes over 30 months following a normal colposcopy. METHODS: This cohort study was nested within the UK TOMBOLA randomized controlled trial. Women aged 20-59 years, with recent low-grade cytology, who had a satisfactory colposcopy examination and normal transformation zone, completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Process Outcome Specific Measure (POSM) at recruitment and during follow-up (12, 18, 24 and 30 months post-recruitment). Outcomes included percentages reporting significant anxiety (HADS anxiety subscale score ≥11), significant depression (HADS depression subscale score ≥8) or worries about the result of the next cytology test, cervical cancer, having sex, future fertility and general health at each time point (point prevalence) and during follow-up (cumulative prevalence). RESULTS: The study included 727 women. All psychological measures (except depression) had high prevalence at recruitment, falling substantially by 12 months. During follow-up, the cumulative prevalence of significant anxiety was 27% and significant depression was 21%. The most frequently reported worry was that the next cytology test would be abnormal (cumulative prevalence of 71%; point prevalence of ≥50% at 12 and 18 months). The cumulative prevalence values of worries about cervical cancer, having sex and future fertility were 33%, 20% and 16%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For some women who have low-grade cytology, a normal colposcopy does not appear to provide psychological reassurance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.329 · 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.

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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytopathologySame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207