MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Human papillomavirus (HPV) detection in vaginal self-samples: evaluation of eNat® as an alternative suspension medium to ThinPrep®PreservCyt® for vaginal swabs

2022· article· en· W4220939251 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.

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

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Research Europe · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeEuropean Commission
KeywordsColposcopyMedicineHybrid captureCervical cancerGynecologyHuman papillomavirusObstetricsCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns4:p>Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-collected samples allows for improved coverage rates of cervical cancer (CC) screening programs. ThinPrep®PreservCyt® (HOLOGIC®, USA) medium is widely used for the suspension of cervical and vaginal self-samples. However, this medium is costly, toxic, and flammable, involving special handling procedures which make its use difficult in screening programs, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.</ns4:p> <ns4:p> This pilot study aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of eNat <ns4:bold>®</ns4:bold> (Copan SpA), an alternative non-alcohol-based suspension medium, compared to ThinPrep®PreservCyt® (HOLOGIC®) for high-risk HPV (hrHPV) detection in vaginal self-collected swabs using three different real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) HPV assays: Anyplex™II HPV28 (Seegene, Korea), Papilloplex® High Risk HPV (GeneFirst, UK), and HPV OncoPredict (Hiantis, Italy). </ns4:p> <ns4:p>30 women, referred to colposcopy, were enrolled in this observational, prospective pilot study and asked to collect two vaginal self-taken samples, which were suspended in 5 mL of ThinPrep®PreservCyt® or eNat®. Nucleic acids were extracted from 200 μL using Microlab Nimbus platform (Seegene, Korea) and tested with the three different RT-PCR full-genotyping high-risk HPV assays. The HPV results of vaginal samples resuspended in the two different media were compared to those obtained from the reference clinician-collected cervical sample from the same woman.</ns4:p> <ns4:p> hrHPV detection in vaginal self-samples suspended in both media demonstrated a substantial agreement with cervical samples with the three assays under-investigation (0.667 <ns4:underline>&lt;</ns4:underline> k <ns4:underline>&lt;</ns4:underline> 0.796). Moreover, the discordances between vaginal self-samples collected from the same woman were found only in cases of normal cytology or low-grade cytological lesions and were generally related to low hrHPV viral loads as indicated by the quantitative HPV OncoPredict assay (6.24E+02 copies/10,000 cells). </ns4:p> <ns4:p>This study demonstrated a very good agreement between cervical and vaginal self-collected samples suspended in ThinPrep®PreservCyt® and eNat®, suggesting that the latter could represent a good alternative medium in HPV screening programs based on self-collection.</ns4:p>

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.244 · 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