ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Prediction models for high-grade cervical lesions or worse using machine learning.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to improve cervical screening efficiency by developing and validating machine-learning models for predicting high-grade cervical lesions or worse (HCL) risk. Methods: From Swedish nationwide registers, we included 474,072 women invited to cervical screening in 2016 (split into 80% training and 20% test sets) and 370,105 women invited in 2017 for validation. All women underwent index cytology and/or human papillomavirus (HPV) testing within the recommended interval after age 29. Predictors included screening results (cytology and/or HPV testing), other HPV-related factors, and demographic factors (including age). Four random forest models were trained via 5-fold cross-validation with different predictors: Model 1 (M1) (all predictors), M2 (cytology, HPV testing, age), M3 (HPV testing, other HPV-related factors, and demographic factors), and M4 (HPV testing and age). We computed area under the curves (AUCs) and created plots to depict positive predictive value (PPV) by the number of women intervened. Findings: In training and test sets, 1-, 3-, and 5-year HCL incidence proportions were 0.25%, 0.68%, and 1.05%, respectively. Cross-validated AUCs were 0.83-0.96 (M1), 0.83-0.96 (M2), 0.91-0.94 (M3), and 0.91-0.93 (M4), depending on the prediction intervals. Similar AUCs were found in the test set. Additionally, the AUCs in the validation set were 0.85-0.95 (M1), 0.85-0.95 (M2), 0.91-0.94 (M3), and 0.92-0.93 (M4). Across all intervals, M1 consistently demonstrated the highest PPV, followed by M2, M3, and M4. For each model, PPVs were lowest for 1-year predictions but comparable at 3 and 5 years. Interpretation: The models demonstrated strong predictive performance. Evaluating PPVs over the number of invited women provides the potential for risk-stratified screening and clinical utility. Funding: Vetenskapsrådet, FORTE, Karolinska Institutet, Horizon 2020, and Cancerfonden.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.