Systematic literature review of risk factors for cervical cancer in the Chinese population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives:Human papillomavirus is the necessary cause of cervical cancer, in particular the human papillomavirus-16/18 strains, which have been detected in ~70% of all cervical cancer cases worldwide. This study aims to assess whether other cofactors, which might be specific for the Chinese population, are involved in the development of cervical cancer. These findings may support the future direction of cervical cancer prevention.Study Design:Systematic literature review.Methods:The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, MEDLINE-IN-PROCESS, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data and Chongqing VIP Information. The target population were adolescents or adults from mainland China. All observational studies irrespective of intervention or comparator reporting risk factors for cervical cancer were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. The impact of each outcome was reported in numerical terms.Results:A total of 2,676 articles were screened. A total of 21 articles met the inclusion criteria. All studies were case-controlled designs mostly conducted in hospitals of South-Eastern China. A total of 18 studies reported lifestyle behaviours as significant influencing factors in the development of cervical cancer. Sexual behaviour, gestational factors, screening history, disease history and socio-demographics status were reported as significant risk factors for cervical cancer development.Conclusion:This review provides an up-to-date insight of current cervical cancer risk factors in China. Due to the heterogeneity of the results, further evaluation is recommended to determine the association of these risk factors to the overall risk 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 teacher head, 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".