Antenatal and postnatal cervical precancer screening to increase coverage: experience from Battor, Ghana
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cervical precancer screening in low-resource settings is largely opportunistic with low coverage. Many women in these settings, where the burden of cervical cancer is highest, only visit health institutions when pregnant or after delivery. We explored screening during antenatal and postnatal visits aimed at increasing coverage. Methods: Pregnant women (in any trimester) attending antenatal care (ANC) and women attending postnatal care (PNC; 6-10 weeks) clinics were screened at Catholic Hospital, Battor and at outreach clinics from February to August 2022 (08/02/2022 to 02/08/2022). At the same visit, cervical specimens were obtained for high-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) DNA testing (with the Sansure MA-6000 PCR platform) followed by either visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) or mobile colposcopy with the enhanced visual assessment system. Results: -value = 0.853). Conclusion: A significant number of women in Ghana only visit a health facility during pregnancy or after delivery. ANC and PNC clinics would offer opportunities to increase coverage in cervical precancer screening in low-resource settings. Relying on community nurses ensures that such programs are readily integrated into routine care of women and no opportunity is missed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it