MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3145837550 · doi:10.1097/lgt.0000000000000604

The Natural History of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grades 1, 2, and 3: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3145837550 on OpenAlex
Diede Loopik, Heidi A. Bentley, Maria N. Eijgenraam, Joanna IntHout, Ruud L.M. Bekkers, J. Bentley

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lower Genital Tract Disease · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaNatural historyMEDLINEGynecologyOncologyInternal medicineCervical cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to obtain an updated overview of regression, persistence, and progression rates of conservatively managed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN 1)/CIN 2/CIN 3. METHODS: Data sources were MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane (January 1, 1973-April 14, 2020). Two reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. To estimate outcome rates, we pooled proportions of the individual study results using random-effects meta-analysis, resulting in point estimates and corresponding 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was quantified by the I2 and τ2 measures. RESULTS: Eighty-nine studies were included, 63 studies on CIN 1 (n = 6,080-8,767), 42 on CIN 2 (n = 2,909-3,830), and 7 on CIN 3 (n = 245-351). The overall regression, persistence, and progression to CIN 2 or worse and CIN 3 or worse rates for women with conservatively managed CIN 1 were 60% (95% CI = 55-65, I2 = 92%), 25% (95% CI = 20-30, I2 = 94%), 11% (95% CI = 8-13, I2 = 89%), and 2% (95% CI = 1-3, I2 = 82%), respectively. The overall regression, persistence, and progression rates for CIN 2 were 55% (95% CI = 50-60, I2 = 85%), 23% (95% CI = 19-28, I2 = 83%), and 19% (95% CI = 15-23, I2 = 88%), respectively. Finally, for CIN 3, these were 28% (95% CI = 17-41, I2 = 68%), 67% (95% CI = 36-91, I2 = 84%), and 2% (95% CI = 0-25, I2 = 95%), respectively. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 regression was significantly higher in women 30 years or younger and high-risk human papillomavirus-negative women (66%, 95% CI = 62-70, I2 = 76%; 94%, 95% CI = 84-99, I2 = 60%). Only 2/7,180 (0.03%) and 10/3,037 (0.3%) of the CIN 1 and CIN 2 cases progressed to cervical cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Most CIN 1/CIN 2 will regress spontaneously in less than 24 months, with the highest rates in high-risk human papillomavirus-negative and young women, whereas progression to cancer is less than 0.5%. Conservative management should be considered, especially in fertile women and with expected high compliance. Given the heterogeneity in regression rates of high-grade histology, this should be classified as CIN 2 or CIN 3 to guide management.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.299 · 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