MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156286965 · doi:10.1086/432059

Self-Sampling Is Associated with Increased Detection of Human Papillomavirus DNA in the Genital Tract of HIV-Seropositive Women

2005· article· en· W2156286965 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Petignat, Catherine Hankins, Sharon Walmsley, Deborah Money, Diane Provencher, Karina Pourreaux, J. Kornegay, Fabrice Douglas Rouah

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKappaTypingSex organConfidence intervalInternal medicineCervical cancerGynecologyCancerBiologyMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Analysis of self-collected swab samples from the genital tract could improve accrual and retention of women in studies of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and precancerous cervical lesions. Self-collected vaginal swab specimens and physician-collected cervical swab specimens were compared for detection and typing of HPV DNA in 158 HIV-seropositive women. METHODS: Paired samples were collected for 157 participants. Beta-globin was not detected in 6 (3.3%) physician-collected specimens and 8 (4.3%) self-obtained specimens collected from 11 women, leaving 146 paired samples suitable for PCR analysis. HPV DNA was amplified with the HPV primers PGMY09 and PGMY11 and typed using the line blot assay. RESULTS: HPV DNA was detected more frequently in self-collected samples (95 [65.1%] of 146), compared with physician-collected samples (78 [53.4%] of 146) (P = .04). Self-collected samples contained a greater number of types (mean +/- SD, 1.60 +/- 1.80 types; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-1.90), compared with physician-collected samples (mean +/- SD, 1.25 +/- 1.66 types; 95% CI, 0.98-1.52) (P = .04). A good agreement between sampling methods was achieved for detection of any HPV DNA (kappa = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.89), high-risk types (kappa = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99), and low-risk types (kappa = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.67-0.75). Agreement between sampling methods for detection of HPV DNA was found for 24 (88.8%) of 27 follow-up samples collected from a total of 20 women. A comparison of samples collected at consecutive visits revealed agreements for detection of any HPV DNA, detection of high-risk HPV, and HPV typing results between visits of 88.9% (24 of 27 samples), 81.5% (22 of 27), and 55.5% (15 of 27), respectively, for physician-collected samples, and 96.3% (26 of 27 samples), 92.6% (25 of 27), and 55.5% (15 of 27), respectively, for self-collected samples. CONCLUSION: Analysis of self-collected vaginal swab samples improved the detection rate of HPV, suggesting that such samples might be of greater value than physician-obtained samples in studies of HPV transmission.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207