Screening with Papanicolaou tests in Alberta: Are we Choosing Wisely?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and geographic distribution of cervical cancer screening, as well as the age groups of those undergoing screening, in Alberta, and to determine if screening practices conform to current guidelines and follow Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations. DESIGN: Descriptive study using data from the Alberta Ministry of Health Analytics and Performance Reporting Branch. SETTING: Alberta. PARTICIPANTS: Women who had 1 or more Papanicolaou tests between 2011 and 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of women aged 15 to 20 and those aged 70 and older who had 1 or more Pap tests in a 3-year period; year-to-year trends in screening rates for women in these 2 age groups; trends in screening rates in various geographic regions (ie, cities and zones) in Alberta; and the discipline of clinicians who ordered the Pap tests. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2013, 805 632 women in the province of Alberta had 1 or more Pap tests for cervical cancer screening. Overall, 25 511 (17.5%) women aged 15 to 20 and 16 818 (10.3%) aged 70 and older were screened contrary to most existing guidelines. Screening rates varied markedly in different geographic regions of the province. Most Pap tests were ordered by family physicians or general practitioners. CONCLUSION: Within the geographic regions of Alberta, provincial, national, and international guidelines for screening with Pap tests are inconsistently followed. This strongly echoes the need for clinicians and patients to consider the Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations and current guidelines for cervical cancer 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".