Use of HPV testing in cervical cancer screening services in Mexico, 2008-2018: a nationwide database study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the methods of a study aimed at evaluating high risk-HPV (hrHPV)-based screening and cervical cytology as triage compared to conventional cervical cytology as primary screening in the detection of grade 2+ cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) of Mexico. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We will use information originated from the Womens Cancer Information System of Mexico regarding cervical cancer from 2008 to 2018. The database includes cytology results, diagnostic confirmation by histopathology and/or treatment colposcopy. We will then carry out statistical analyses on approximately 15 million hrHPV. RESULTS: We will evaluate the overall performance of hrHPV-based screening as part of the NCSP and compare hrHPV-based to cytology-based screening under real-life conditions. To guarantee an unbiased comparison between hrHPV with cytology triage and conventional cytology we will use propensity score matching. CONCLUSIONS: ytology we will use propensity score matching. Conclusion. Decision makers may use our results to identify areas of opportunity for improvement in NCSP processe.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".