MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313282133 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v13n4p15

Pap smear collection: Proposal of a low-cost simulator for health education

2022· article· en· W4313282133 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Juliana de Souza Gonçalves Martinovski, Neide da Silva Knihs, Nádia Chiodelli Salum, Lúcia Nazareth Amante, Mônica Stein, Melissa Orlandi Honório Locks, Luciana Martins da Rosa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWomen's cancer prevention and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervixMedicineMedical physicsHealth careContext (archaeology)EndocervixGynecologyNursingCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To develop a low-fidelity and low-cost simulator for health education in Pap smears.Methods: This is an experience report of the care practice carried out with nine nurses and twenty-five women, during Pap smears in the office of the Rural Zone Family Health Team. The SQUIRE 2.0 method was used in the following steps Context: the issue was analyzed. Intervention: searches for the existence of a simulator with the same purpose. The simulator was built manually, using low-cost materials. Measurements: an evaluation of the nurses' perception of the technology produced was performed. Afterward, it was used with women undergoing Pap smears. Analysis: evaluation was carried out by means of simple descriptive statistics.Results: A low-cost and fidelity simulator formed by six slides, where the first slide represents a normal cervix; followed by a slide representing a cervix with cervicitis; a cervix with polyp; a cervix with a lesion in the transformation zone; a cervix with malignant neoplasm; and, by a figure equal to the first slide, however, the hole of the endocervix is perforated in order to introduce the brush of the Pap smear kit.Conclusion and implications for practice: A strengthening of cervical cancer preventive strategies in Primary Health Care was obtained. The simulator allows visualization of the main components of the female genital organ when introducing the speculum, configuring a creative and innovative health education strategy for nursing practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: Other design
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.411 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicWomen's cancer prevention and managementFrench-language works237,207