Initial evaluation of a new cervical screening strategy combining human papillomavirus genotyping and automated visual evaluation: the Human Papillomavirus–Automated Visual Evaluation Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The HPV-Automated Visual Evaluation Consortium is validating a cervical screening strategy enabling accurate cervical screening in resource-limited settings. A rapid, low-cost human papillomavirus (HPV) assay permits sensitive HPV testing of self-collected vaginal specimens; HPV-negative women are reassured. Triage of positive participants combines HPV genotyping (4 groups in order of cancer risk) and visual inspection assisted by automated cervical visual evaluation that classifies cervical appearance as severe, indeterminate, or normal. Together, the combination predicts which women have precancer, permitting targeted management to those most needing treatment. We analyzed CIN3+ yield for each HPV-Automated Visual Evaluation risk level (HPV genotype crossed by automated cervical visual evaluation classification) from 9 clinical sites (Brazil, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eswatini, Honduras, Malawi, Nigeria, and Tanzania). Data from 1832 HPV-positive participants confirmed that HPV genotype and automated cervical visual evaluation classification strongly and independently predict risk of histologic CIN3+. The combination of these low-cost tests provided excellent risk stratification, warranting pre-implementation demonstration projects.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".