MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1539644673 · doi:10.3968/gh.v1i1.5262

Increasing Colonoscopy Compliance Using a Blood-Based Risk Assessment Test for Colorectal Cancer

2014· article· es· W1539644673 on OpenAlexaff
Chun Ren Lim, Mohamad Hasyim Mohd Sharil Sim, Eng Lok Seow, Prashanta Kumar Das, David F. Harris, Michelle Mei Lin Lee, Choong‐Chin Liew, Robert Burakoff

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterología y Hepatología · 2014
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopyMedicineColorectal cancerIncidence (geometry)Blood testTest (biology)Internal medicineCompliance (psychology)CancerPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ColonSentry ® is a minimally invasive, blood-based risk assessment test for colorectal cancer. The test is used to increase patient compliance with colonoscopy. Many physicians have inquired about the incidence of non-malignant lesions found in patients after colonoscopy prompted by an increased risk score on the ColonSentry test. Here we report on the colonoscopy results of five patients with increased ColonSentry risk scores. Of those five patients, three were determined to have polyps, one of which was pre-malignant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterología y HepatologíaSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207