No abstract

Our objective was to directly compare the accuracy of the high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) assays, Hybrid Capture 2 (hc2; Qiagen, Gaithersburg, MD) and Cervista (Hologic, Bedford, MA), in diagnosing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3 or worse (cancer). A population-based, cross-sectional study (The Shenzhen Cervical Cancer Screening Trial II) was conducted in Guangdong Province in China. Three high-risk HPV assays, self and direct cervical sampling and cytology, were studied. Abnormal results on any of 6 study tests (33%) resulted in referral to colposcopy. At colposcopy, every patient had at least 5 cervical biopsy specimens obtained. For 8,556 women between the ages of 25 and 59 years (mean, 38.9 years), the rate for CIN 3 or worse was 1.6% (141/8,556). The sensitivity (confidence interval) values for CIN 3 or worse were 97.9% (94.0%-99.6%) and 95.1% (90.0%-98.0%) for hc2 and Cervista, respectively (P > .05). The specificity (confidence interval) values were 87.8% (87.1%-88.5%) and 90.3% (89.6%-90.9%), respectively (P < .05). Differences in accuracy in diagnosing CIN 3 or worse with the hc2 and Cervista tests are minor and result from the decisions made in selecting the cut points.

Environmental noise from anthropogenic and other sources affects many aspects of animal ecology and behaviour, including acoustic communication. Acoustic masking is often assumed in field studies to be the cause of compromised communication in noise, but other mechanisms could have similar effects. We tested experimentally how background noise disrupted the response to conspecific alarm calls in wild superb fairy‐wrens, Malurus cyaneus, assessing the effects of acoustic masking, distraction and changes in vigilance. We first examined the birds' response to alarm‐call playbacks accompanied by different amplitudes of background noise that overlapped the calls in acoustic frequency. We then scored and videoed their response to alarm calls in two types of background noise, that did or did not overlap call frequency, but were broadcast at a constant amplitude. Birds were less likely to flee to alarm calls in higher amplitudes of overlapping noise, demonstrating that noise itself compromised communication independently of environmental correlates. Background noise affected the response only if it overlapped in frequency with the alarm calls, implying that the effect was not due to distraction. Further, birds were equally vigilant during background noise of overlapping or non‐overlapping frequency, indicating that the lack of response to alarm calls in overlapping noise was not due to enhanced vigilance and awareness that there was no predator. We conclude that alarm‐call reception was compromised by masking, a mechanism that is often assumed but rarely tested in an ecological context. Masking compromised reception of high‐frequency “aerial” alarm calls and so could reduce survival in background noise of similar frequency. While anthropogenic noise, which is often of lower frequency, is unlikely to affect communication with these calls, it could affect reception of acoustic cues of danger, or other conspecific or heterospecific alarm calls. A http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.13333/suppinfo is available for this article.

The density peak clustering (DPC) algorithm was designed to identify arbitraryshaped clusters by finding density peaks in the underlying dataset. Due to its aptitudes of relatively low computational complexity and a small number of control parameters in use, DPC soon became widely adopted. However, because * Milan Parmar and Di Wang contributed equally to this work.