Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To review cervical smear results in women of reproductive age group. Study design: Descriptive study. Place andduration of study: This study was carried out at the pathology department, Railway hospital, Islamic International Medical College Trust.Rawalpindi, from Jan 2007-Dec 2010. Materials and methods: A total of four hundred and seventy seven cervical smears were included in thestudy. Inclusion criteria was females of reproductive age group. Smears from postmenopausal women and those who had hysterectomy wereexcluded from the study. The cervical smear was taken using modified Ayres wooden spatula, or plastic spatula, to collect endocervical sample.The slides prepared were immediately fixed in 95% ethyl alcohol, and were subsequently stained by the recommended procedure of Papstaining. After staining, the slides were mounted with Canada balsam and finally reported by the cytopathologist according to the BethesdaSystem. Results: Four hundred and seventy seven patients were included in the study. Most of the patients belonged to low socio economicstatus. The cytological examination of the smears showed inflammatory changes in 33% (n=159) cases, normal smears/ no positive finding in25% (n= 118) cases, while reactive changes were seen in 2% (n= 10). Dysplastic changes were seen in 2 %( n= 10), while unsatisfactory/Inadequate samples were reported in 38 %( n=182) cases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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".