Colonoscopy and Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Practice Patterns in Ontario: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a population-based study on the provision of large bowel endoscopic services in Ontario. METHODS: Data from the following databases were analyzed: the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences Physicians Database and Statistics Canada. The flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy rates per 10,000 persons (50 to 74 years of age) by region between April 1, 2001, and March 31, 2002, were calculated, as well as the numbers and types of physicians who performed each procedure. RESULTS: In 2001/2002, a total of 172,108 colonoscopies and 43,400 flexible sigmoidoscopies were performed in Ontario for all age groups. The colonoscopy rate was approximately five times that of flexible sigmoidoscopy; rates varied from 463.1 colonoscopies per 10,000 people in the north to 286.8 colonoscopies per 10,000 people in the east. Gastroenterologists in all regions tended to perform more procedures per physician, but because of the large number of general surgeons, the total number of procedures performed by each group was almost the same. CONCLUSION: Population-based rates of colonoscopies and flexible sigmoidoscopies are low in Ontario, as are the procedure volumes of approximately one-quarter of physicians.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".