Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evidence comparing cervical cancer screening strategies that combine artificial intelligence-assisted liquid-based cytology (AI-LBC) and high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing in large-scale populations is limited. This study includes 284,002 women who underwent AI-LBC and HR-HPV genotyping in community-based screening in Wuhan, China. We evaluate the performance of nine hypothesized screening strategies in detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and their colposcopy referral rates. After correcting for verification bias, HR-HPV testing alone (Strategy 4) demonstrates higher sensitivity (94.93% vs. 83.88%) and a higher Youden’s index (0.864 vs. 0.789) than AI-LBC alone (Strategy 1), but requires a higher referral rate (9.05% vs. 5.49%). Among the triage-based strategies, Strategy 3 (AI-LBC with reflex HR-HPV) achieves a sensitivity of 82.90%, a referral rate of 2.67%, and a Youden’s index of 0.807. HR-HPV genotyping with reflex AI-LBC (Strategy 7) demonstrates a sensitivity of 92.68%, a Youden’s index of 0.899, and a referral rate of 3.34%. Co-testing of AI-LBC and HR-HPV genotyping (Strategy 9) achieves the highest Youden’s index (0.932), with a sensitivity of 96.37% and a referral rate of 3.70%. These findings suggest that AI-LBC performs well as a standalone screening method, triage tool, or a component a co-testing strategy in cervical cancer screening. When HR-HPV genotyping is available, Strategy 7 or Strategy 9 may be considered, depending on the trade-off between detection performance and referral burden. The authors prove AI-assisted cytology effective for cervical cancer screening. When combined with HPV testing, it detects more precancerous lesions and maintains low referral rates.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: