Accuracy of optical spectroscopy for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia without colposcopic tissue information; a step toward automation for low resource settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optical spectroscopy has been proposed as an accurate and low-cost alternative for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. We previously published an algorithm using optical spectroscopy as an adjunct to colposcopy and found good accuracy (sensitivity=1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.92 to 1.00], specificity=0.71 [95% CI=0.62 to 0.79]). Those results used measurements taken by expert colposcopists as well as the colposcopy diagnosis. In this study, we trained and tested an algorithm for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (i.e., identifying those patients who had histology reading CIN 2 or worse) that did not include the colposcopic diagnosis. Furthermore, we explored the interaction between spectroscopy and colposcopy, examining the importance of probe placement expertise. The colposcopic diagnosis-independent spectroscopy algorithm had a sensitivity of 0.98 (95% CI=0.89 to 1.00) and a specificity of 0.62 (95% CI=0.52 to 0.71). The difference in the partial area under the ROC curves between spectroscopy with and without the colposcopic diagnosis was statistically significant at the patient level (p=0.05) but not the site level (p=0.13). The results suggest that the device has high accuracy over a wide range of provider accuracy and hence could plausibly be implemented by providers with limited training.
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 | 0.014 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".