Evolution of Terminology for Human-Papillomavirus-Infection-Related Vulvar Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review the nearly 100-year evolution of terminology applicable to oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV)-related vulvar intraepithelial squamous lesions and present current consensus terminology. METHODS: An extensive literature search of the English language was performed, which included articles that reviewed French and German publications, from 1922 to 2012. The database search was assisted by representatives of the American Society for Colposcopy and the College of American Pathologists as part of a comprehensive study and consensus effort to achieve unified terminology among gynecologists, dermatologists, pathologists, and other related experts to develop for reporting female and male lower genital and anal HPV related squamous lesions. This was done by the committee referred to as the "LAST" Committee. Some of the results and conclusions have been previously presented and published. This presentation is specifically related to vulvar squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL)/vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia terminology. RESULTS: This work will review past terminology related to HPV-related vulvar SIL, beginning in 1922. The most current terminology will be presented as proposed by the LAST Committee and considered by the World Health Organization this year in accord with the US-Canadian Academy of Pathology. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus of terminology for HPV-related vulvar SIL has been sought for some time, and currently, some consensus has been achieved. The term "squamous intraepithelial lesion" is favored over "intraepithelial neoplasia." A 2-tier classification, of "high grade (HSIL)" or "low grade (LSIL)," is favored over a 3- or 4-tier classification. The application of this terminology will be discussed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".