Screening History in 313 Cases of Invasive Cancer: A Retrospective Review of Cervical Cancer Screening in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the screening history of invasive cervical cancer (ICC) cases in Alberta, Canada to identify areas for improvement of the population-based cervical cancer screening program. METHODS: Retrospective review of ICC cases diagnosed in 2 cities in Alberta between 2007 and 2012. Cancer morphology and staging were elicited from the Alberta Cancer Registry; cancer screening history and Pap test results were extracted from the Provincial Cervical Cancer Screening database. Women were classified as adequately screened, underscreened, and unscreened depending on time from last screening Pap test to diagnosis. RESULTS: Of the 280 cases that occurred in women eligible for screening, 125 (44.6%) were adequately screened, 18 (6.4%) were underscreened, and 137 (49%) were unscreened. Among the adequately screened, 71 (56.8%) had normal Pap test results, but 48 (38%) had less than 3 previous Pap tests (p = .003). Cancer stages I to II were diagnosed in 48.8% and 44.1% of adequately screened and unscreened women and cancer stages III to IV in 30.6% and 66.1% in each group, respectively (p = .0058). Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was diagnosed in 189 women (67.5%). The proportion of SCCs was similar in adequately screened and unscreened women. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of SCCs and advanced stages of ICC seems to be decreased. The results of quality improvement initiatives such as enhanced surveillance of high-grade Pap test results and histology-cytology correlation will be monitored and are expected to result in better outcomes for adequately screened women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".