Research Appraisaldiagnostic

A Triage Model for HR-HPV Positive Women Based on Methylation of Human and HPV Genes

Journal of medical virologyYang, Yuan, Zhou, Hang, Wang, Yakun et al.1 May 2026DOI

Clinical Snapshot

60CEBM
Evidence: Moderatediagnostic

PICO Framework

P — Population512 HR-HPV positive women undergoing cervical cancer screening
I — InterventionMachine learning triage model based on methylation patterns of human and HPV genes
C — ComparatorHPV 16/18 genotyping and cytology testing
O — OutcomesPrediction of CIN2+ lesions (sensitivity, specificity, AUC)

Bottom Line

This diagnostic accuracy study evaluated a methylation-based machine learning model for triaging HR-HPV positive women to predict CIN2+ lesions. In 512 Chinese women, the random forest model achieved an AUC of 0.9, significantly outperforming HPV 16/18 genotyping and cytology. The model demonstrated 84.4% sensitivity and 85.7% specificity in validation testing. While promising, the study lacks methodological detail, confidence intervals, and clarity on reference standard application. The single-centre Chinese population limits generalisability to Australian practice. Before clinical implementation, this approach would require validation in Australian populations and demonstration of cost-effectiveness compared to current NHMRC-recommended triage strategies. The technology shows potential for reducing unnecessary colposcopies while maintaining high sensitivity for detecting significant cervical lesions.

Evidence: Moderate

Key Findings

  • P Value: p < 0.001 (DeLong test vs comparators)

  • Effect Size: AUC 0.9 for random forest model

  • Primary Outcome: CIN2+ prediction accuracy

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: Sensitivity 84.4%, Specificity 85.7% (calculated from validation data)

  • Confidence Interval: Not reported

Clinical Application

Requires methylation analysis capability and machine learning infrastructure Would need validation in Australian population before implementation. Could potentially reduce unnecessary colposcopies if validated, aligning with NHMRC cervical screening guidelines HR-HPV positive women requiring triage for colposcopy referral

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop a machine learning triage model for HR-HPV positive women based on methylation patterns of human and HPV genes to predict the risk of CIN2 +, and to compare its performance with traditional detection techniques. A total of 512 eligible women participated in the study, with exfoliated cervical cell specimens collected for methylation analysis of both human and HPV genes. Highly methylated gene fragments related to cervical cancer were identified through high density, high association, high MHL (Methylation Haplotype Load) screening and Logistic regression. The samples were divided into a training set and a validation set at a ratio of 7:3, and a machine learning triage model was constructed using CIN2+ as the outcome. Among 512 HR-HPV positive women, 174 (34.0%) had CIN2 +. To construct the random forest model, 10 high methylation human gene fragments were identified from a pool of 45 genes, along with HPV 16, 18, and 52 L2 genes. In the validation set, the random forest model identified 45 samples as positive (38 were true positives) and 112 samples as negative (96 were true negatives). The model achieved an AUC of 0.9, and DeLong test confirmed its performance was significantly superior (p < 0.001) to HPV 16/18 genotyping and cytology testing. The random forest model constructed based on methylation patterns of human and HPV genes demonstrated strong predictive efficacy for CIN2+ in HR-HPV positive women, and may optimize the triage method in cervical cancer screening.

References

  1. 1.Yang, Y., Zhou, H., Wang, Y., Zhang, H., Pi, R., Chen, Y., Dai, Y., Li, T., Huang, Z., Du, J., Han, L., Ren, L., & Chen, W. (2026). A triage model for HR-HPV positive women based on methylation of human and HPV genes. Journal of Medical Virology. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.70930
Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service