A Comparison of Colposcopy Using Optical and Video Colposcopes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To compare the colposcopic adequacy, colposcopic impressions, histologic sampling intent, biopsy site location, procedural complications, and difficulty of colposcopic examinations using optical and video colposcopes. Materials and Methods. Women and men presenting consecutively for colposcopy were examined independently by two colposcopists using alternately either an optical or video colposcope. Colposcopists individually recorded their exam adequacy, colposcopic impression, biopsy intent and site, procedural complications, and difficulty of examination. Most colposcopists had no prior experience with video colposcopes. Results. Of 300 patients, mean age 35.3 years (±12.2 SD), examined, 29.7% were nulliparous, 4.9% pregnant, 52.5% had a previous biopsy and 34.3% had prior cervical treatment. Agreement between colposcopes was excellent for visualizing the complete squamocolumnar junction (75.6%, x2 = 6.40, p = 0.09). Colposcopists using the video colposcope had more unsatisfactory exams of the endocervical canal (36.6%, 97/265) than did colposcopists using optical colposcopes (24.9%, 66/265, x2 = 16.65, p = 0.001). Colposcopic impression agreement with pathology results were not significantly different between the video (58.1%) and optical (57.0%) colposcopes (x2 = 0.09, p = 0.8). Biopsy intent (79.9% agreement, x2 = 0.20, p = 0.7) and biopsy site selection by cervical quadrant were not significantly different for the two colposcopes. Both types of colposcopes were rated extremely easy to use, but colposcopy in general (T = 3.97, p < 0.001), visualization (T = 2.98, p = 0.002), assessment (T = 2.76, p = 0.004), and sampling (Wilcoxon = 2.27, p = 0.02) were determined to be easier when using optical colposcopes. Conclusions. Video colposcopes have similar, clinically relevant outcomes when compared with optical colposcopes. Colposcopists using optical colposcopes reported easier colposcopy exams and fewer unsatisfactory examinations of the endocervical canal. These findings may represent a learning curve effect as colposcopists become familiar with operating the video colposcope.▪
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".