A64 REVIEW OF PATIENTS REFERRED TO THE DIVISION OF DIGESTIVE CARE AND ENDOSCOPY AT DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY FOR COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING BASED ON A FAMILY HISTORY OF COLORECTAL CANCER: HOW MANY UNDERWENT COLONOSCOPY?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Nova Scotia has provincial colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for asymptomatic, average risk individuals age 50–74 using fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) every 2 years. However, individuals with 1 or more first degree relatives (FDR) diagnosed with CRC by age 60 have a 2–4 fold increased risk for developing CRC. For these high risk individuals, current guidelines recommend CRC screening with colonoscopy rather than FIT testing. Annually, the Division of Digestive Care & Endoscopy (DCE) at Dalhousie University receives many referrals for patients with a family history of CRC but the percentage of patients who require this procedure is unclear. Aims The objectives of this quality assessment study were to review patients referred to DCE for a family history of CRC to (1) better understand the indication for referral; and (2) determine the percentage of patients undergoing colonoscopy Methods This was a retrospective cross sectional review of a prospectively updated database. The study population was patients referred to DCE from 2012–2019 based on a family history of CRC, as indicated on the referral. Family history of CRC was defined as 1 or more FDRs diagnosed with CRC. High risk patients were those with 2 or more FDRs with CRC or 1 FDR diagnosed by age 60. All patients were reviewed by a single gastroenterologist in clinic. Results A total of 107 referrals from 2012–2019 were reviewed. Of patients age 50 or older, 51/78 (65.4%) had performed at least 1 FIT. The indications for referral were 2 or more FDR diagnosed with CRC for 6/107 (5.6%) patients, 1 FDR diagnosed with CRC by age 60 for 37/107 patients (34.6%) and 1 FDR diagnosed with CRC over age 60 for 33/107 patients (30.8%). The remaining 31/107 patients (29.0%) had no FDR with CRC. Of the 43/107 patients (40.2%) considered high risk based on family history alone, 34/43 (79.1%) underwent colonoscopy and 8/43 (18.6%) opted for FIT testing. Of the 64/107 patients (59.8%) considered average risk based on family history alone, 26/64 (40.6%) had another indication for colonoscopy and 35/64 (54.7%) resumed FIT testing. Conclusions The majority of patients (71.0%) referred to the DCE for a family history of CRC had at least 1 FDR with CRC. Just over half of patients (55.1%) referred to the DCE for a family history of CRC underwent colonoscopy. Strategies to improve the referral process by better capturing high risk individuals are needed. Funding Agencies None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».