Cervical cancer screening among vulnerable women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To see if refugee women at a community health centre (CHC) in Toronto, Ont, are appropriately screened for cervical cancer and if there are any demographic characteristics that affect whether they are screened. Design Chart review. Setting A CHC in downtown Toronto. Participants A total of 357 eligible refugee women attending the CHC. Main outcome measures Papanicolaou test received or documented reason for no Pap test. Results Ninety-two percent of women in the study sample were either appropriately screened for cervical cancer or had been approached for screening. Eighty percent of women were appropriately screened. Demographic variables including pregnancy, being uninsured, not speaking English, recent migration to Canada, and being a visible minority did not affect receipt of a Pap test after migration in multivariate analyses. Not speaking English was associated with a delay to receiving a first Pap test after migration. Conclusion The clients at our centre are demographically similar to women who are typically overlooked for Pap tests in the greater Toronto area. Despite belonging to a high-risk population, refugee women in this multidisciplinary CHC were screened for cervical cancer at a higher rate than the local population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".