MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2377870996 · doi:10.2310/6650.2005.x0004.294

295 DO WOMEN FOLLOWING TRADITIONAL CHINESE POSTPARTUM PRACTICES OBTAIN LESS CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING IN NORTH AMERICA?

2006· article· en· W2377870996 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hue Thai, C. Jackson, J. Huntington

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Investigative Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsCervical cancerCervical cancer screeningGynecologyFamily medicineTraditional medicineCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Introduction</h3> Asian Americans make up a sizable minority in the US, with Chinese currently making up the largest subgroup. However, despite this fact, the majority of Chinese women in North America underutilize Pap testing and carry a disproportionately higher rate of invasive cervical cancer. It has been suggested that certain cultural beliefs and practices can interfere with Western health care utilization among newly arrived immigrant communities. <h3>Methods</h3> Fifteen hundred thirty-two women ages 20 to 69 from Seattle, Washington and Vancouver, BC were interviewed in person in 1999, and data from 993 participants were analyzed. <h3>Results</h3> Women who observed postpartum rituals or who believed that certain aspects of their rituals help prevent them from obtaining cervical cancer did not show an underutilization of Pap testing. However, other factors, such as having a car in the household, speaking English, or being married, were highly predictive of Chinese women9s Pap test utilizations. <h3>Discussion</h3> Based on these findings, postpartum practices do not seem to negatively influence Pap test utilization among Chinese women in North America. Instead, clinicians serving Chinese in North America should focus more on economic, language, and acculturation as potential barriers for their patients9 health care utilization.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Investigative MedicineSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207