O10.1 Age Specific Round 1 Results of a Cervical Cancer Screening Trial: HPV FOCAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background HPV FOCAL Study is a randomised trial evaluating the efficacy of high risk-HPV DNA (hr-HPV) testing, with Liquid Based Cytology (LBC) triage testing of hr-HPV positives, compared to LBC testing alone (with triage hr-HPV testing for ASCUS positives) in an organised screening programme. Round 1 age specific results comparing differences in screen detection rates between women < 35 yrs vs ≥ 35 yrs are presented. Methods Between January 2008 and May 2012, 25,243 consented women aged 25 to 65 were randomised to receive either: primary hr-HPV testing (HPV arms) or primary LBC testing (Control arm). Samples obtained with ThinPrep ® LBC. HPV testing performed with Qiagen Hybrid Capture 2 ® High-Risk HPV DNA Test. Results Data is presented for 21,985 participants enrolled as of July 1, 2011 who had completed Round 1 follow-up procedures by February 20, 2012. Overall, detection rates for CIN3+ were not statistically different between the HPV arm (7.8/1000; 95% CI: 6.1, 9.6) and the control arm (4.9/1000; 95% CI: 3.3, 6.5) when women of all ages were evaluated. In women ≥ 35yrs, the overall detection rate for CIN2+ and CIN3+ were both significantly higher in the HPV arm compared to the control arm (CIN2+: 9.9/1000 vs. 5.1/1000 respectively)(CIN3+: 4.4/1000 vs. 2.0/1000 respectively). For women < 35 yrs, HPV testing detected more CIN2+ and CIN3+ than LBC, but this did not achieve statistical significance. Overall, colposcopy referrals were higher in the HPV testing arm vs. control arm (59.1/1000, vs. 31.5/1000). HPV testing in < 35 yrs referred significantly more women to colposcopy than cytology (153.2/1000 vs. 73.3/1000). Conclusion HPV screening with cytology triage detects significantly more CIN2+ lesions in women ≥ 35 years than LBC alone in the first round of screening. In women < 35, there was no difference in detection rates, but overall, HPV primary screening resulted in higher colposcopy rates.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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 teacher head, 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".