Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cervical cancer screening draws on cytology, colposcopy and clinical history, yet public datasets are organized by modality and almost never share patients, so patient-level multimodal models cannot be trained or validated on them. We therefore ask a narrower question that such data can answer: how well do unsupervised normative anomaly detectors work on each modality under careful evaluation? We built three independent pipelines (cytology images, colposcopy images and a clinical risk-factor table) using frozen or distilled visual embeddings and five scorers: an autoencoder, Isolation Forest, One-Class SVM, Mahalanobis distance and k-nearest-neighbor (kNN) distance. Evaluation used group-level splits, a contamination study, cross-dataset tests and clustered bootstrap intervals. On cytology, plain kNN on frozen features reached a macro area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.93–0.95, whereas our equal-weight ensemble reached only 0.65–0.78, and distillation gave no benefit. On colposcopy, every scorer was at chance (AUROC 0.44–0.51). Clinical history gave a weak signal (AUROC 0.64). Embeddings identified the source dataset with 94–99% accuracy, so cytology scores may partly reflect acquisition differences rather than pathology. We claim no diagnostic validity and no patient-level fusion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Namratha Nadur Krishnamurthy (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: