Trends in Time to Diagnosis of Colon Cancer and Impact on Clinical Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been a rapid increase in screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) over the past several years in North America. This could paradoxically lead to worsening outcomes if the system is not adapted to deal with the increased demand. For example, this could create increased wait times for endoscopy and delayed time to CRC diagnosis, which could worsen clinical outcomes such as stage at diagnosis and⁄or survival. No previous Canadian study has evaluated the association between time to CRC diagnosis and clinical outcomes. METHODS: The present historical cohort study used Manitoba's population-based cancer registry and Manitoba Health administrative databases. The effect of time to diagnosis on patient survival was evaluated using Cox regression analysis with adjustment for stage at diagnosis, grade of CRC, age, sex, socioeconomic status, comorbidity index score and year of CRC diagnosis. The association between time to diagnosis and CRC stage at diagnosis was evaluated using multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The median time to CRC diagnosis increased significantly from 72 days (95% CI 61 days to 83 days) in 2004 to 105 days (95% CI 64 days to 129 days) in the first three months of 2009 (P=0.04). There was no significant association between time to diagnosis and survival. Individuals with the longest time to diagnosis were less likely to have stage III⁄IV CRC at diagnosis (quartile 4 versus quartile 1: OR 0.50 [95% CI 0.33 to 0.75). CONCLUSION: Time to CRC diagnosis is continuing to increase in Manitoba. Although the present study did not detect a significant negative clinical effect of increasing time to diagnosis, additional studies are required.
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 | 0.000 | 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".