Recent Trends in Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Test Utilization in Canada, Using Self-Reported Data from 2008 and 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, self-reported data from the Canadian Community Health Survey 2008 and 2012 provide an opportunity to examine overall utilization of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening tests for both programmatic and opportunistic screening. Among women 50-74 years of age, utilization of screening mammography was stable (62.0% in 2008 and 63.0% in 2012). Pap test utilization for women 25-69 years of age remained high and stable across Canada in 2008 and 2012 (78.9% in 2012). The percentage of individuals 50-74 years of age who reporting having at least 1 fecal test within the preceding 2 years increased in 2012 (to 23.0% from 16.9% in 2008), but remains low. Stable rates of screening mammography utilization (about 30%) were reported in 2008 and 2012 among women 40-49 years of age, a group for which population-based screening is not recommended. Although declining over time, cervical cancer screening rates were high for women less than 25 years of age (for whom screening is not recommended). Interestingly, an increased percentage of women 70-74 years of age reported having a Pap test. In 2012, a smaller percentage of women 50-69 years of age reported having no screening test (5.9% vs. 8.5% in 2008), and more women reported having the three types of cancer screening tests (19.0% vs. 13.2%). Efforts to encourage use of screening within the recommended average-risk age groups are needed, and education for stakeholders about the possible harms of screening outside those age groups has to continue.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".