Cervical cancer screening among HIV-positive women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the rate of cervical screening among HIV-positive women who received care at a tertiary care clinic, and to determine whether screening rates were influenced by having a primary care provider. DESIGN Retrospective chart review. SETTING Tertiary care outpatient clinic in Ottawa, Ont. PARTICIPANTS Women who were HIV-positive receiving care at the Ottawa Hospital General Campus Immunodeficiency Clinic between July 1, 2002, and June 30, 2005. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Whether patients had primary care providers and whether they received cervical screening. We recorded information on patient demographics, HIV status, primary care providers, and cervical screening, including date, results, and type of health care provider ordering the screening. RESULTS Fifty-eight percent (126 of 218) of the women had at least 1 cervical screening test during the 3-year period. Thirty-three percent (42 of 126) of the women who underwent cervical screening had at least 1 abnormal test result. The proportion of women who did not have any cervical tests performed was higher among women who did not have primary care providers (8 of 12 [67%] vs 84 of 206 [41%]; relative risk 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 2.52, P < .05), although this group was small. CONCLUSION Despite the high proportion of abnormal cervical screening test results among HIV-positive women, screening rates remained low. Our results support our hypothesis that those women who do not have primary care providers are less likely to undergo cervical screening.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".