ArticlePloS one2025
Molecular triage on HPV-positive samples in a cervical screening setting.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of DNA Methylation Markers for Detecting Cervical Precancer and Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2026Review
- The Age of Molecular Biomarkers: Cancer in the Era of Personalized Medicine. What Do Pathologists in Developing Countries Need to Know and Understand?International journal of general medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo improve human papilloma virus (HPV) screening, more effective triage methods for HPV-positive samples need development and validation. Cytology, the most common triage method today, is subjective and can only be applied to professionally collected samples. Methylation status has been shown to be informative, as genes are highly methylated in HPV-induced cervical dysplasia and cancer. This study aimed to assess whether triaging HPV-positive samples using molecular methods, such as methylation and genotyping for high-risk HPV types, could be as effective as cytology in cervical screening.
methodsA retrospective biobank study was conducted on HPV-positive samples collected in 2017-2018, analyzing FAM19A4/MiR-124-2 hypermethylation and HPV genotyping for types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and/or 59, comparing these results to cytology triage for detecting histologically confirmed high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) and cancer.
resultsResults from 1915 positive screening samples were analyzed, including 1052 follow-up biopsies with 402 HSIL or cancer cases. Genotyping showed slightly higher sensitivity than cytology but lower specificity, while methylation had higher specificity but much lower sensitivity. Cytology's positive predictive value (PPV) was 36%, with lower PPVs for the molecular methods. Combining molecular methods increased the PPV but significantly reduced sensitivity.
conclusionsBased on these findings with molecular methods reducing sensitivity, we do not recommend adopting the molecular triage methods evaluated in this study in the Swedish setting. The trade-off between sensitivity and specificity does not support a change from the current cytology-based triage approach.
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.