ArticleInternational journal of public health2026
Bringing Cervical Cancer Screening Closer to Women: Feasibility of Artificial Intelligence and Remote Assessment in Primary Health Care.
Article in International journal of public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective was to assess the feasibility of image-based methods for screening and triaging women in a single visit by: (i) a trained but inexperienced nurse, (ii) remote expert review via a web system, (iii) an artificial intelligence (AI) model. Methods: Sexually active, non-pregnant women (25-65 years) were screened using visual inspection method Cervical images captured with Smart Scope® CX were assessed independently by nurses, remote experts, and AI, with assessors blinded to each other. Referrals for colposcopy were based on remote expert evaluations followed by colposcopy/biopsy. Results: Among 871 women screened, AI identified 205 positives; experts identified 201. Colposcopy was performed on 69 women, 40 of them had a biopsy. Compared to histopathology, AI achieved 86.7% sensitivity, 92.0% specificity, and 90.0% accuracy (AUC = 0.894). Remote experts showed high sensitivity (86.7%) but low specificity (32%) and accuracy (52.5%). Conclusion: This study provides proof of concept for the feasibility of the AI-driven Smart Scope® CX test as a single-visit "screen-and-triage" tool in primary healthcare settings. Additionally, remote expert assessment demonstrating performance comparable to colposcopy indicates its potential as an alternative triage method in low-resource settings.
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.