Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41816190›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026

Prediction models for high-grade cervical lesions or worse using machine learning.

Yunyang Deng, Joakim Dillner, Nicholas Baltzer, Laila Sara Arroyo Mühr, Roxana Merino Martinez, Alexander Ploner, Jiayao Lei, Mark Clements

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Yunyang DengDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Joakim DillnerCenter for Cervical Cancer Elimination, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, 141 52, Stockholm, Sweden.
Nicholas BaltzerCenter for Cervical Cancer Elimination, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, 141 52, Stockholm, Sweden.
Laila Sara Arroyo MührCenter for Cervical Cancer Elimination, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, 141 52, Stockholm, Sweden.
Roxana Merino MartinezCenter for Cervical Cancer Elimination, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, 141 52, Stockholm, Sweden.
Alexander PlonerDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jiayao LeiDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mark ClementsDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cervical cancerHigh-grade cervical lesionsHuman papillomavirusMachine learningPrediction modelRandom forest

Identifiers

PMID41816190
PMCPMC12972733

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.