Randomized controlled trial of human papillomavirus testing versus Pap cytology in the primary screening for cervical cancer precursors: Design, methods and preliminary accrual results of the Canadian cervical cancer screening trial (CCCaST)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since infection with oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) has been considered a necessary cause of cervical cancer, tests for oncogenic HPV types have been proposed as adjuncts or replacements to Pap cytology. We designed the Canadian Cervical Cancer Screening Trial (CCCaST) to compare the relative efficacy of HPV DNA testing and Pap cytology in primary screening for cervical cancer and its high-grade precursors. CCCaST randomized women aged 30-69 years in Montreal (Quebec) and in St. John's (Newfoundland) to 1 of 2 screening groups: focus on Pap (conventional) or focus on HPV testing (Hybrid Capture 2). Women in both arms received both tests, but were randomized as to their order, the first test being the index test. Women with an abnormal Pap test or a positive HPV test underwent colposcopy and biopsy, as did a random sample of women with a negative index test. CCCaST enrolled 9,667 women between October 2002 and October 2004. At enrolment, 2.8% had an abnormal Pap test, 6.1% had a positive HPV test and 1.1% were abnormal in both tests. ASC-US was the most frequent cytological abnormality, representing 64% of abnormal Pap results. The frequency of abnormal Pap and HPV results decreased with increasing age and the proportion of HPV-positive results increased with the severity of Pap abnormality. Efficacy analysis will determine if the extra referrals with HPV DNA testing will translate into a relevant increase in high-grade cervical cancer precursor detection. Because of its design, CCCaST will provide sound evidence for formulating cervical cancer screening strategies.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".