Human Papillomavirus Infection and Anxiety: Analyses in Women with Low-Grade Cervical Cytological Abnormalities Unaware of Their Infection Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women testing positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection experience increased levels of anxiety that have been attributed to fears of stigmatization and developing cervical cancer. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between HPV infection and anxiety in women who were unaware they had been tested specifically for HPV, to determine if any anxiety experienced by HPV-positive women could be due to causes other than learning of test results. METHODS: This study was nested within a randomised controlled trial of management of women with abnormal cervical cytology conducted in the United Kingdom with recruitment between 1999 and 2002. At baseline, prior to having a sample taken for HPV testing, the results of which were not disclosed, women were assessed for anxiety using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and asked about fears of developing cervical cancer ("cancer worries"); this assessment was repeated at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months of follow-up. Logistic regression and generalized estimating equations were used for the cross-sectional (baseline) and longitudinal analyses, respectively. RESULTS: Among the 2842 participants, there was no association between HPV status and anxiety among white women. Among non-white women, however, anxiety was less common among HPV-positive than HPV-negative women (adjusted odds ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.77). Among non-smokers, cancer worry was more common in HPV-positive than HPV-negative women; the opposite association was observed among ex-smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Associations between HPV status and anxiety may be explained by factors other than learning of test results and may vary by ethnicity and lifestyle factors.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".