MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295234014 · doi:10.1002/ijc.34286

Assessing the risk of cervical neoplasia in the <scp>post‐HPV</scp> vaccination era

2022· review· en· W4295234014 on OpenAlexaff
Matti Lehtinen, Ville N. Pimenoff, Belinda Nedjai, Karolina Louvanto, Lisanne Verhoef, Daniëlle A.M. Heideman, Mariam El‐Zein, Martin Widschwendter, Joakim Dillner

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cancer · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersKWF KankerbestrijdingEuropean CommissionHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeCancer Research UK
KeywordsCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaMedicineCervical cancerVaccinationTriageColposcopyHPV vaccinesOncologyIntraepithelial neoplasiaModalitiesSquamous intraepithelial lesionCancerImmunologyGynecologyInternal medicineHPV infection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review is based on the recent EUROGIN scientific session: "Assessing risk of cervical cancer in the post-vaccination era," which addressed the demands of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)/squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) triage now that the prevalence of vaccine-targeted oncogenic high-risk (hr) human papillomaviruses (HPVs) is decreasing. Change in the prevalence distribution of oncogenic HPV types that follows national HPV vaccination programs is setting the stage for loss of positive predictive value of conventional but possibly also new triage modalities. Understanding the contribution of the latter, most notably hypermethylation of cellular and viral genes in a new setting where most oncogenic HPV types are no longer present, requires studies on their performance in vaccinated women with CIN/SIL that are associated with nonvaccine HPV types. Lessons learned from this research may highlight the potential of cervical cells for risk prediction of all women's cancers.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.394 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of CancerSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207