Human papillomavirus testing versus cytology in primary cervical cancer screening: End‐of‐study and extended follow‐up results from the Canadian cervical cancer screening trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Cervical Cancer Screening Trial was a randomized controlled trial comparing the performance of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and Papanicolaou cytology to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grades 2 or worse (CIN2+) among women aged 30-69 years attending routine cervical cancer screening in Montreal and St. John's, Canada (n = 10,154). We examined screening and prognostic values of enrollment cytologic and HPV testing results. Extended follow-up data were available for St. John's participants (n = 5,754; 501,682.6 person-months). HPV testing detected more CIN2+ than cytology during protocol-defined (82.9 vs. 44.4%) and extended (54.2 vs. 19.3%) follow-up periods, respectively. Three-year risks ranged from 0.87% (95% CI: 0.37-2.05) for HPV-/Pap- women to 35.77% (95% CI: 25.88-48.04) for HPV+/Pap+ women. Genotype-specific risks ranged from 0.90% (95% CI: 0.40-2.01) to 43.84% (95% CI: 32.42-57.24) among HPV- and HPV16+ women, respectively, exceeding those associated with Pap+ or HPV+ results taken individually or jointly. Ten-year risks ranged from 1.15% (95% CI: 0.60-2.19) for HPV-/Pap- women to 26.05% (95% CI: 15.34-42.13) for HPV+/Pap+ women and genotype-specific risks ranged from 1.13% (95% CI: 0.59-2.14) to 32.78% (95% CI: 21.15-48.51) among women testing HPV- and HPV16+, respectively. Abnormal cytology stratified risks most meaningfully for HPV+ women. Primary HPV testing every 3 years provided a similar or greater level of reassurance against disease risks as currently recommended screening strategies. HPV-based cervical screening may allow for greater disease detection than cytology-based screening and permit safe extensions of screening intervals; genotype-specific testing could provide further improvement in the positive predictive value of such 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".