MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404841048 · doi:10.1016/j.lanmic.2024.100955

Global prevalence of cervical human papillomavirus in women aged 50 years and older with normal cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4404841048 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Microbe · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisHuman papillomavirusMedicineCytologyGynecologyObstetricsSystematic reviewCervical screeningCervical cancerMEDLINEPathologyInternal medicineBiologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Given the paucity of up-to-date empirical data on human papillomavirus (HPV) among older women, we aimed to estimate the global HPV prevalence in women aged 50 years and older with normal cytology. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched for quantitative studies (cross-sectional, longitudinal, case-control, randomised control trials) reporting HPV prevalence among women aged 50 years and older with normal cytology published until May 31, 2022, in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The pooled prevalence and 95% CIs of any-HPV and high-risk (HR)-HPV were estimated using random-effects models. Geographical differences were assessed in stratified meta-analyses and multiple meta-regression models. The prevalence by 5-year age groups and genotypes was estimated when reported using mixed-effects models. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021241365). FINDINGS: From 9099 identified articles, 132 were included in the qualitative synthesis. 91 (68·9%) studies were deemed to have a low risk of bias and 41 (31·1%) a high risk of bias. We estimated a worldwide pooled any-HPV prevalence of 11·70% (95% CI 9·68-13·87) from 73 studies including 41 745 women and an HR-HPV prevalence of 6·45% (5·45-7·53) from 102 studies including 437 228 women. The pooled prevalence varied geographically, with the highest estimates in western Africa (any-HPV: 32·26% [4·53-70·22]; HR-HPV: 16·20% [0·70-45·95]) and central America (any-HPV: 24·50% [9·97-42·93]; HR-HPV: 13·52% [9·48-18·14]), and the lowest in western Europe (any-HPV: 5·98% [3·08-9·77]; HR-HPV: 4·09% [2·37-6·25]) and western Asia (for HR-HPV only: 3·27% [0·00-20·91]). Worldwide, any-HPV prevalence generally decreased with age, from 10·74% (5·84-18·95) at 50-54 years to 3·56% (2·33-5·40) after age 75 years. HR-HPV prevalence decreased from 6·04% (4·33-8·38) at age 50-54 years to 4·61% (3·25-6·51) at 60-64 years, increased again to 6·33% (4·03-9·79) at 65-69 years, and then decreased to 5·28% (2·83-9·63) after age 75 years. HPV types 16 (1·17% [0·67-2·03]) and 53 (0·90% [0·43-1·90]) were the most prevalent globally. INTERPRETATION: HPV prevalence in women aged 50 years and older with normal cytology varies globally and mostly correlates with the cervical cancer burden. Research on HPV persistence, progression, and cost-effectiveness of HPV testing among older women should be conducted to fully inform future cervical cancer screening policies. FUNDING: None.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.315 · 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