MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389245545 · doi:10.3390/healthcare11233079

Surviving the Storm: The Impact of COVID-19 on Cervical Cancer Screening in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

2023· article· en· W4389245545 on OpenAlexafffund
Mandana Vahabi, Anam Shahil Feroz, Aïsha Lofters, Josephine Pui‐Hing Wong, Vijayshree Prakash, Sharmila Pimple, Kavita Anand, Gauravi Mishra

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan University
FundersGlobal Affairs Canada
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Low and middle income countriesCervical cancerLow incomeSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakStormMedicineEnvironmental healthDeveloping countryGeographySocioeconomicsVirologyCancerEconomic growthInternal medicineMeteorologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, the cervical cancer screening rate dropped by 84% soon after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. The challenges facing cervical cancer screening were largely attributed to the required in-person nature of the screening process and the measures implemented to control the spread of the virus. While the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening is well-documented in high-income countries, less is known about the low- and middle-income countries that bear 90% of the global burden of cervical cancer deaths. In this paper, we aim to offer a comprehensive view of the impact of COVID-19 on cervical cancer screening in LMICs. Using our study, "Prevention of Cervical Cancer in India through Self-Sampling" (PCCIS), as a case example, we present the challenges COVID-19 has exerted on patients, healthcare practitioners, and health systems, as well as potential opportunities to mitigate these challenges.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.322 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207