Assessment of Correlation Between p16INK4a Staining, Specific Subtype of Human Papillomavirus, and Progression of LSIL/CIN1 Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study and compare the effectiveness of p16(INK4a) staining and specific human papillomavirus (HPV) subtypes as a prognostic marker in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1; low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions). METHODS: Sixty-four cervical samples diagnosed as CIN1 and stained with p16(INK4a), with HPV status assessed by polymerase chain reaction-direct sequencing. RESULTS: Of the 34 p16(INK4a)-negative biopsy specimens, 26 regressed, seven persisted, and one progressed. Of the 20 p16(INK4a) diffusely positive biopsy specimens, seven regressed, eight persisted, and five progressed. Ten biopsy specimens stained positive only in the lower one-third of the sample, of which seven regressed and three persisted. p16(INK4a) diffusely positive CIN1 lesions were associated with only high-risk HPV subtypes, with the exception of one HPV-negative biopsy specimen. Three different high-risk HPV subtypes and one low-risk HPV subtype (HPV66) were identified in the six CIN1 lesions that progressed. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant relationship between p16(INK4a) immunostaining and follow-up (P = .002). p16(INK4a)-negative specimens or positivity in the lower one-third of CIN1 lesions seldom progress to a CIN2-3 lesion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".