Cervical Cancer Screening in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Who Should Be Screening?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immunosuppressed women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at elevated risk of cervical cancer yet have lower screening rates. The objective of this study was to assess the familiarity with cervical cancer screening recommendations, and the perceived responsibility for implementing screening among three physician groups involved in the clinical care of women with IBD: primary care physicians (PCP), gastroenterologists (GI) and gynecologists (GYN). METHODS: We anonymously surveyed a sample of 117 PCP, 52 GYN and 35 GI physicians affiliated with Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA, from April 2018 to January 2019. The physicians completed a questionnaire adressing essential aspects of cervical cancer screening such as screening age, screening frequency, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, comfort level in performing Papanicolaou (Pap) smears, perception of physician responsibility in terms of which physicians should perform Pap smears. RESULTS: A total of 2.6% of PCPs, 37% of GIs and 29% of GYNs reported familiarity with cervical cancer screening recommendations. In addition, PCP and GI had no definite opinions regarding which physicians should be in charge of cervical cancer screening and performing Pap smears. However, 94% of GYNs felt that they should be in charge of cervical cancer screening and performing Pap smears. CONCLUSIONS: An apparent lack of familiarity exists among all three physician groups regarding cervical cancer screening recommendations in immunosuppressed patients with IBD. Similarly, there is no consensus regarding which specialty should be responsible for cervical cancer screening in this patient 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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".