Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anal dysplasia and intraepithelial neoplasia are part of a continuum of anal cancer that is typically treated with curative intent. Surveillance after treatment in our practice includes high-resolution anoscopy. This is similar to colposcopy in cervical cancer screening and treatment programs. It allows for the visualization of the anal canal, with biopsy of suspicious looking lesions [1]. In Canada, high-resolution anoscopy is performed in a few outpatient settings, and constitutes part of a screening program for individuals who are at high risk for anal dysplasia due to human papillomavirus (e.g., men who have sex with men and HIV-positive individuals). These high-risk individuals are usually screened with an anal Pap smear, and referred for high-resolution anoscopy if the cytology result is abnormal. Following high-resolution anoscopy, biopsy may be indicated. If the biopsy shows high-grade dysplasia (anal intraepithelial neoplasia II/III, carcinoma in situ), lesions are treated with either 80 % trichloroacetic acid or infrared coagulation. Recent data on infrared coagulation show that it is a safe and effective office-based procedure, and that repeated treatments lead to resolution of the high-grade dysplasia [2].
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.008 |
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".