Primary care provider perspectives on specimen self-collection for cervical cancer screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cervical cancer incidence continues to rise across Canada. Unlike some other cancers, cervical cancer is largely preventable through a combination of vaccination and routine screening. Cervical cancer screening was introduced in British Columbia in 1955 using the Papanicoulau smear which requires a cervical specimen be obtained during a pelvic exam. However, the pelvic exam has been identified by patients as a barrier to participation in cervical cancer screening. Today, vaginal human papillomavirus testing provides a safe, validated alternative to the Papanicoulau smear. Importantly, the human papillomavirus specimen can be collected by patients themselves using a vaginal swab, thereby removing pelvic exam-related barriers to cervical cancer screening. Specimen self-collection tends to be preferred by patients, however primary care providers' perspectives on its use are not known. Primary care providers, including nurse practitioners, have the potential to impact their patients' health behaviours, and as such, understanding providers' perspectives on the use of self-collection is an important consideration in order to reduce the burden of cervical cancer.,
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".