Uptake of community‐based, self‐collected <scp>HPV</scp> testing <i>vs</i>. visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical cancer screening in <scp>K</scp>ampala, <scp>U</scp>ganda: preliminary results of a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare two cervical cancer screening methods: community-based self-collection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA). METHODS: Pilot randomised controlled trial of 500 women aged 30-65 in the community of Kisenyi, Uganda. Women randomised to self-collection-based HR-HPV testing provided a cervico-vaginal swab for HR-HPV, and results were provided by phone after laboratory testing. Women who tested HPV positive were referred for VIA at the local health unit. Women randomised to VIA underwent screening at the local health unit, where women who tested positive with VIA were provided cryotherapy at time of screening, as per local standard of care. Women were referred for colposcopy when indicated. Outcome measures were uptake of screening, HR-HPV prevalence, VIA result and treatment rates. RESULTS: In the HR-HPV arm, 248 of 250 (p < 0.01) women provided samples, while in the VIA arm, 121 of 250 (48.4%) women attended screening. Among the 73 of 248 HR-HPV-positive women, 45.2% (N = 33) attended VIA screening for follow-up, 21.2% (N = 7) of whom screened positive; five received treatment and two were missing clinical follow-up records. Of the 121 women in the VIA arm who attended screening, 13.2% (N = 16) screened positive; seven received cryotherapy, three refused treatment, five were referred to colposcopy; and one woman had suspected cervical cancer and received treatment after confirmatory testing. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated trial feasibility and willingness of the women to participate and be randomised successfully into the two arms. Self-collection-based cervical cancer screening had a higher uptake than VIA.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".