Do Patients Undergo Prostate Examination while Having a Colonoscopy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate at which physicians report performing a digital rectal examination and comment on the prostate gland before performing colonoscopy in men 50 to 70 years of age. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all men 50 to 70 years of age who had a colonoscopy in Kingston, Ontario, in 2005 was completed. It was noted whether each physician described performing a digital rectal examination before the colonoscopy, and if so, whether he or she commented on the prostate. RESULTS: In 2005, 846 eligible colonoscopies were performed by 17 physicians in Kingston, Ontario. In 29.2% of cases, the physician made no comment about having performed a digital rectal examination; in 55.8% of cases, the physician commented on having completed a digital rectal examination but said nothing about the prostate; and in 15.0% of cases, the physician made a comment regarding the prostate. No physician consistently commented on the prostate for all patients, and in no circumstances was direct referral to another physician or follow-up suggested. DISCUSSION: A colonoscopy presents an ideal opportunity for physicians to use a digital rectal examination to assess for prostate cancer. Physicians performing colonoscopies in men 50 to 70 years of age should pay special attention to the prostate while performing a digital rectal examination before colonoscopy. This novel concept may help maximize resources for cancer screening and could potentially increase the detection rate of clinically palpable prostate cancer.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".