A Clinical Decision Support System for Assessing the Risk of Cervical Cancer: Development and Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer has been recognized as a preventable type of cancer. As the assessment of all the risk factors of a disease is challenging for physicians, information technology and risk assessment models have been used to estimate the degree of risk. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a clinical decision support system to assess the risk of cervical cancer. METHODS: This study was conducted in 2 phases in 2021. In the first phase of the study, 20 gynecologists completed a questionnaire to determine the essential parameters for assessing the risk of cervical cancer, and the data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. In the second phase of the study, the prototype of the clinical decision support system was developed and evaluated. RESULTS: The findings revealed that the most important parameters for assessing the risk of cervical cancer consisted of general and specific parameters. In total, the 8 parameters that had the greatest impact on the risk of cervical cancer were selected. After developing the clinical decision support system, it was evaluated and the mean values of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 85.81%, 93.82%, and 91.39%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical decision support system developed in this study can facilitate the process of identifying people who are at risk of developing cervical cancer. In addition, it can help to increase the quality of health care and reduce the costs associated with the treatment of cervical cancer.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".