MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012682099 · doi:10.1002/cncy.22266

Sensitivity of cervico‐vaginal cytology in endometrial carcinoma: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2020· review· en· W3012682099 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Cytopathology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIICentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer
KeywordsMedicineEndometrial cancerGynecologyCarcinomaLymphovascular invasionCervical cancerPapanicolaou stainPap testCytologyOncologyCervixStage (stratigraphy)CancerInternal medicineObstetricsMetastasisPathologyCervical cancer screening

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cervico-vaginal cytology is primarily a cervical cancer screening test. The anatomical continuity of the uterine cavity with the cervix makes the Papanicolaou (Pap) test accessible to evaluate signs of disease shed from the endometrium. Our aim was to determine the sensitivity of routine Pap test in endometrial carcinoma detection and its relationship with clinico-pathologic factors. We performed a systematic review of studies reporting Pap test results prior to diagnosis of or surgery for endometrial carcinoma between 1990 and 2018 in PubMed or Web of Science. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. We identified 45 studies including a total of 6599 women with endometrial cancer. Abnormal Pap test results prior to diagnosis of or surgery for endometrial carcinoma were observed in 45% (95% CI, 40%-50%) of study participants. This percentage was significantly higher among those of non-endometrioid histology compared with endometrioid subtypes (77% [95% CI, 66%-87%] vs 44% [95% CI, 34%-53%], respectively; P heterogeneity <.001). Several clinico-pathologic factors were related to a higher percentage of abnormal Pap test results, including high-stage, myometrial invasion >50%, high histological grade, positive peritoneal cytology, presence of lymph node metastasis, cervical involvement, and lymphovascular invasion (P heterogeneity <.05 for all variables). Routine cervical cytology can detect endometrial cancer in almost half of patients, whereas sensitivity is higher among individuals with non-endometrioid histology or more advanced cancers. This review summarizes the current clinical and prognostic value of cervical cytology in endometrial carcinoma. Recent technological developments using molecular biomarkers may improve accuracy for early cancer detection.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it