Endoscopic Follow-Up of Positive Fecal Occult Blood Testing in the Ontario FOBT Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Ontario FOBT Project is a pilot study of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer screening conducted among age-eligible volunteers (50 to 75 years) in 12 of 37 public health regions in Ontario. METHODS: Volunteers responded to invitations from primary care practitioners (PCPs) in six regions, and from public health programs in the remaining regions. FOBT collection kits were distributed from routine laboratory specimen collection sites, to which completed kits were returned. Results were sent to PCPs in all 12 regions, with copies sent to the study office at Cancer Care Ontario (Toronto, Ontario). Follow-up of positive results was at the discretion of the PCPs. The study files contained the unique Ontario Health Insurance Numbers, the date of the analyses, the number of satisfactory slides and the results for each slide. The Ontario Health Insurance Numbers were encrypted for each participant, and along with the study file, were linked to medical billing claims, hospital records and aggregate demographic data. RESULTS: Among participants with positive results (men 3.5% and women 2.2%), the median time from date of FOBT analysis to date of colonoscopy was 121 days among men and 202 days among women. At the end of follow-up, after positive FOBT (six to 17 months), 73% of men and 56% of women had proceeded to colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Although colonoscopy appeared to be acceptable to the majority of participants with positive FOBT, accessibility problems was the likely explanation for lengthy intervals between the date of positive FOBT and its performance. Differences between the experiences of men and women require further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".