Community‐Based Breast and Cervical Cancer Control Research in Asian Immigrant Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Asian‐American women are less likely to receive mammography and Papanicolaou (Pap) testing than women from other racial/ethnic groups. Screening rates are particularly low among Asian women who are not proficient in English. This article focuses on community‐based breast and cervical cancer control research in Asian populations. First, the authors address community participatory research principles and several important program evaluation issues: sampling, survey methods, recruitment and retention, translation, data quality, and control group “contamination.” Second, the authors summarize community‐based studies that aimed to increase mammography or Pap testing levels among women of Asian descent. Overall, 9 relevant studies are identified that targeted Asian communities in Canada, the United States, and England. Overall, three of the studies randomized individual women to intervention or control status, two randomized groups of women, and four used a quasi‐experimental (two‐community) study design. These studies, which reported mixed results, highlight the methodological challenges in conducting evaluative public health research, particularly in racial/ethnic minority communities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".