MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410079683 · doi:10.1097/lgt.0000000000000895

Lifetime Cervical Cancer Screening and Social Determinants of Health in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging

2025· article· en· W4410079683 on OpenAlexaffabout
Melissa Lavecchia, Amanda Selk, Maura Marcucci, Andra Nica, Parminder Raina, Waldo Jiménez, Julie My Van Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lower Genital Tract Disease · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCervical cancerDemographyCancer screeningCervical cancer screeningGerontologyCancerPopulationCross-sectional studyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: In Canada, cervical cancer rates remain well above the World Health Organization target, despite screening and vaccination programs. Modeling reveals that those who have never undergone screening represent one of the highest risk populations. The Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) prospectively collected health outcomes on >50,000 individuals. The authors sought to identify the prevalence of Canadian female participants having never undergone cervical cancer screening and the association with social determinants of health. METHODS: The authors performed a cross-sectional analysis from CLSA data. The main outcome was self-report of ever having undergone a Pap smear. Regression analyses evaluated the association between demographic or social determinants of health and self-reported lifetime cervical cancer screening. RESULTS: The population-based sample comprised 22,910 participants aged 45-85, of whom 99.8% had available information on cervical cancer screening ( n = 22,720). The prevalence of never having undergone a Pap smear was 14.1%; weighted prevalence, 11.8% (95% CI = 11.0-12.6). The following factors were associated with never having undergone screening: older age (10-year) (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.4-1.6), lower education (low vs. high) (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.2-1.9), lower household income (low vs. high) (OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.3-2.3), having a religious affiliation (OR = 1.3, 95% CI = 1.1-1.5), and never being married/lived in common law (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.2-1.9). Notably, not having a family physician was also associated (OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.6-3.3). However, among participants who never underwent a Pap smear, 97% reported having a family physician. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis highlights inequities in cervical cancer screening in the Canadian context. These insights are critical in informing a more equitable approach to implementing human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lower Genital Tract DiseaseSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207