Cervical cancer screening in menopause: when is it safe to exit?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE AND OBJECTIVE: Despite a decreasing incidence of cervical cancer in North America overall, disparities in screening and cervical cancer rates persist, especially in the postmenopausal age group. METHODS: We reviewed the literature regarding cervical cancer screening considerations for postmenopausal persons, with a focus on cervical cancer in postmenopausal persons, existing guidelines, screening methods, and gaps in care. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Postmenopausal persons are an important population at risk because age 65 years in the United States and up to 70 years in some parts of Canada is a milestone for screening cessation if the criteria are met. Unfortunately, inadequate screening is common, with most women 65 years or older discontinuing ( exiting ) screening despite not meeting the criteria to do so. Screening cessation recommendations are nuanced, and if not all criteria are met, screening should be continued until they are. Cervical cancer screening should be stopped at the recommended age if adequate screening has occurred or at any age if life expectancy is limited or the patient has had a hysterectomy in the absence of high-grade preinvasive cervical lesions or cervical cancer. Human papillomavirus infection, which is causally linked to almost all cervical cancer cases, can persist or reactivate from a prior infection or can be newly acquired from sexual contact. With more persons aging with a cervix in place, the potential for cervical cancer has increased, and higher cancer rates may be observed if recommended screening is not adhered to. We propose an algorithm based on current cervical cancer screening guidelines to aid providers in identifying whether exit criteria have been met. Until adequate screening has been confirmed, cervical cancer screening should continue.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".