MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1556003295 · doi:10.5772/19306

Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy

2011· book-chapter· en· W1556003295 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miroslav Zavoral, Štěpán Suchánek, Ondřej Májek, Barbora Rotnaglova, Jan Martínek

Bibliographic record

VenueInTech eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopyMedicineInternal medicineColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most frequent malignant disease in Europe. Every year, 412,000 people are diagnosed with this condition, and 207,000 patients die of it. Secondary prevention of CRC consists of early diagnosis of the disease in asymptomatic individuals (screening) and long term follow up of high risk patients (surveillance). Three groups of screening methods are currently available: stool testing (guaiac or immunochemical fecal occult blood tests -gFOBT and FIT respectively and DNA tests), endoscopic examinations (flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy) and radiologic examinations (computed tomographic colonography and double contrast barium enema). Colonoscopy is therefore used as the only screening method or as a second step in case of positive results of primary screening examination (two steps screening programs). From 27 countries in the European Union, the most frequently used test is FOBT (in 11 states). There is a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy in 6 countries. FOBT and flexible sigmoidoscopy is available in Italy. Currently, the only country using colonoscopy as the only screening method is Poland. At the end of 2010, the European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis were published, summarizing the evidence based medicine data for the efficacy, the interval, the age range, the risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy screening. Unfortunately, prospective randomized trial on the effect of screening colonoscopy in the reduction of CRC incidence and mortality has not been published yet. Promising should be the NordICC study, which was introduced in 2009, however the results will be available in a fifteen year period. Series of recently published studies (Canada, Germany, Poland) focusing on the interval (post-colonoscopic) cancers confirmed the inadequate protection of proximal colon by colonoscopy. Another important issue would be the quality and safety of colonoscopy and the bowel cleansing. Concerning the surveillance colonoscopy, it plays a major role in specific follow up strategies in CRC high risk groups. It can be concluded that with some limitations, colonoscopy still remains the fundamental diagnostic and prophylactic examination in colorectal cancer screening and surveillance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInTech eBooksSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207