Survey of colorectal cancer screening practices in a large Canadian urban centre.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is an ideal tumour for population-based screening policies. Screening guidelines are based on differing levels of evidence and opinion. The objective of this study was to determine current CRC screening practices in Alberta. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to all family physicians, gastroenterologists, general and colorectal surgeons, and general internal medicine specialists in a large Canadian urban centre. Results tabulated included response rate, specialty, presence/absence of a screening policy, and policy type. RESULTS: The 922 surveys mailed resulted in a 61% response rate. Among the responses, 58% (95% confidence interval [CI] 53.6%-62.6%) of physicians recommended screening to healthy individuals without a family history of CRC, and 96% (CI 94.7%-98%; p < 0.0001) to those with a family history. For patients without a family history of CRC, the majority of physicians chose the age of 50 to initiate screening (63%) by fecal occult blood testing (79%) or, less frequently, colonoscopy (26%). Screening frequency varied by the modality used. In individuals with a family history of CRC, most physicians initiated screening prior to the index case (45%) or by age 40 (31%), mostly with colonoscopy (84%); screening frequency varied mainly by modality. CONCLUSION: Despite the evidence supporting CRC screening in all persons at average risk, only 58% of physicians currently recommend screening to patients with no family history of CRC. Fecal occult blood testing was recommended most frequently in this subgroup, whereas most physicians screen people with a family history of CRC via colonoscopy, suggesting that they believe it to be a superior screening modality. As this looks to be the trend in practice, a randomized controlled trial comparing fecal occult testing with screening colonoscopy is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".