MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403556668 · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-75697-3

Nationwide study on development and validation of a risk prediction model for CIN3+ and cervical cancer in Estonia

2024· article· en· W4403556668 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Tisler, Andres Võrk, Martin C. Tammemägi, Sven E. Ojavee, Mait Raag, Aleksandra Šavrova, Mari Nygård, Jan F. Nygård, Mindaugas Stankūnas, Anda Ķīvīte‐Urtāne, Anneli Uusküla

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersEesti Teadusagentuur
KeywordsMedicineCervical cancerWomen's Health InitiativeCovariateCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaProportional hazards modelDemographyEnvironmental healthStatisticsCancerInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transitioning to an individualized risk-based approach can significantly enhance cervical cancer screening programs. We aimed to derive and internally validate a prediction model for assessing the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+) and cancer in women eligible for screening. This retrospective study utilized data from the Estonian electronic health records, including 517,884 women from the health insurance database and linked health registries. We employed Cox proportional hazard regression, incorporating reproductive and medical history variables (14 covariates), and utilized the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) for variable selection. A 10-fold cross-validation for internal validation of the model was used. The main outcomes were the performance of discrimination and calibration. Over the 8-year follow-up, we identified 1326 women with cervical cancer and 5929 with CIN3+, with absolute risks of 0.3% and 1.1%, respectively. The prediction model for CIN3 + and cervical cancer had good discriminative power and was well calibrated Harrell's C of 0.74 (0.73-0.74) (calibration slope 1.00 (0.97-1.02) and 0.67 (0.66-0.69) (calibration slope 0.92 (0.84-1.00) respectively. A developed model based on nationwide electronic health data showed potential utility for risk stratification to supplement screening efforts. This work was supported through grants number PRG2218 from the Estonian Research Council, and EMP416 from the EEA (European Economic Area) and Norway Grants.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.373
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicCervical Cancer and HPV Research→French-language works237,207→