Cervical Screening Practices and Outcomes for Young Women in Response to Changed Guidelines in Calgary, Canada, 2007–2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to describe temporal trends in screening and outcomes for women, after changes in guidelines in Alberta, Canada, that raised starting age to 21 years, then to 25 years of age, and reduced frequency to 3 yearly. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Calgary Laboratory Information System data were used to examine screening rates, follow-up procedures, and cancer among women 10-29 years from 2007 to 2016 in the whole population of Calgary. Interrupted time-series analyses were used to assess changes in screening and subsequent diagnostic procedures over the 10-year period. RESULTS: Annual screening rates dropped by approximately 10% at all ages older than 15 years after the 2009 Alberta cervical cancer screening guidelines, followed by a steady decrease. Further change continued subsequent to minimal apparent effect of the 2013 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guidelines. The rates of abnormal test results decreased in concert with decreased screening. No increases in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3, or invasive cervical cancer rates were observed after reduced testing. CONCLUSIONS: The largest decrease in screening and follow-up procedures occurred in the period immediately after implementation of 2009 Alberta screening guidelines. The number of consequent procedures also decreased in proportion to decreased screening, but there was no increase in cancer rates. Starting screening at the age of 25 years and reducing intervals seem to be safe.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".