A Fall-off in Cervical Screening Coverage of Younger Women in Developed Countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyse cervical screening coverage data by age over time in a number of developed countries throughout the world, with specific emphasis on trends for younger women and on age differentials between younger and older women. METHODS: Routinely collected cervical screening statistics and survey data were collected on the proportion of women who have undergone cervical screening with cytology in seven countries in the period 1995 to 2005. RESULTS: Data for the 25-29 age group were examined. Coverage fell in most countries, in three by more than 5 percentage points. In two countries while overall coverage rose in the period, the rise was not as steep in the youngest group of women. Data for each available 5-year age group for the different countries shows a similar gradient in most, regardless of the absolute level of coverage. Although the trend is not uniform in every country, it appears that generally the gap between coverage of younger women and coverage of older women increased, sometimes dramatically, between the mid-1990s and the mid-2000s. CONCLUSIONS: There is a general trend in developed countries towards lower coverage in young women (25-29 years old). No common underlying cause has been clearly identified and there is a need for further studies to investigate the possible reasons for this phenomenon.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it