ArticleScientific reports2022
Towards a data-driven system for personalized cervical cancer risk stratification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigating the landscape of personalized oncology: overcoming challenges and expanding horizons with computational modeling.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Construction and Validation of a Model for Predicting Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade II+: A Cross-Sectional Population Study via Machine Learning.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- A Machine Learning and Bayesian Belief Network Approach to Predicting Cervical Cancer Risk: Implications for Risk Management.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Nationwide study on development and validation of a risk prediction model for CIN3+ and cervical cancer in Estonia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Acceptability of risk-based triage in cervical cancer screening: A focus group study.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mass-screening programs for cervical cancer prevention in the Nordic countries have been effective in reducing cancer incidence and mortality at the population level. Women who have been regularly diagnosed with normal screening exams represent a sub-population with a low risk of disease and distinctive screening strategies which avoid over-screening while identifying those with high-grade lesions are needed to improve the existing one-size-fits-all approach. Machine learning methods for more personalized cervical cancer risk estimation may be of great utility to screening programs shifting to more targeted screening. However, deriving personalized risk prediction models is challenging as effective screening has made cervical cancer rare and the exam results are strongly skewed towards normal. Moreover, changes in female lifestyle and screening habits over time can cause a non-stationary data distribution. In this paper, we treat cervical cancer risk prediction as a longitudinal forecasting problem. We define risk estimators by extending existing frameworks developed on cervical cancer screening data to incremental learning for longitudinal risk predictions and compare these estimators to machine learning methods popular in biomedical applications. As input to the prediction models, we utilize all the available data from the individual screening histories.Using data from the Cancer Registry of Norway, we find in numerical experiments that the models are strongly biased towards normal results due to imbalanced data. To identify females at risk of cancer development, we adapt an imbalanced classification strategy to non-stationary data. Using this strategy, we estimate the absolute risk from longitudinal model predictions and a hold-out set of screening data. Comparing absolute risk curves demonstrate that prediction models can closely reflect the absolute risk observed in the hold-out set. Such models have great potential for improving cervical cancer risk stratification for more personalized screening recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.