Canadian Guideline on the Management of a Positive Human Papillomavirus Test and Guidance for Specific Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence-based guidance on the management of a positive human papilloma virus (HPV) test and to provide guidance around screening and HPV testing for specific patient populations. The guideline was developed by a working group in collaboration with the Gynecologic Oncology Society of Canada (GOC), Society of Colposcopists of Canada (SCC), and the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The literature informing these guidelines was obtained through a systematic review of relevant literature by a multi-step search process led by an information specialist. The literature was reviewed up to July 2021 with manual searches of relevant national guidelines and more recent publications. The quality of the evidence and strength of recommendations were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. The intended users of this guideline include primary care providers, gynecologists, colposcopists, screening programs, and healthcare facilities. The implementation of the recommendations will ensure an optimum implementation of HPV testing with a focus on the management of positive results. Recommendations for appropriate care for underserved and marginalized groups are made.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".