Canadian Physicians’ Choices for Their Own Colon Cancer Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Compliance with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in Canada is low. The aim of the present survey was to determine whether Canadian physicians older than 50 years were pursuing colon cancer screening. Specifically, physicians were asked to identify their modality of choice and identify their barriers to screening. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to members, older than 50 years, of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, the Canadian Society of Internal Medicine, the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Canadian Association of Radiologists. RESULTS: Of 2,807 surveys, 46% were returned. Screening for CRC was reported by 53% of respondents. The Canadian Association of Radiologists members (61%) and the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology members (61%) were more likely to be screened than other specialties (P<0.01 and P<0.05, respectively). Members of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (44%) were least likely to be screened (P<0.001). Men (P<0.001) and Ontario physicians (P<0.01) were more likely to be screened than women and Canadian physicians from other provinces, respectively. Colonoscopy (56%) was the most common screening modality used, followed by fecal occult blood testing (27%). Respondents who had not been screened cited a lack of personal time (47%) and insufficient data to warrant screening (14%). DISCUSSION: More than one-half of all respondents were screened for CRC. Colonoscopy is the most common screening modality used. Lack of time is the most common reason cited for not participating in CRC screening.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".