Colorectal cancer screening practices in Saskatchewan: Survey of family physicians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate current colorectal cancer (CRC) screening practices in Saskatchewan and identify barriers to screening with the goal of improving current practice. DESIGN: Survey of family physicians. SETTING: Saskatchewan. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 773 family physicians were surveyed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic characteristics, individual screening practices, and perceived barriers to screening. RESULTS: The response rate to the survey was 44.5%. When asked what method they used for fecal occult blood testing, almost 40% of respondents were either unsure or did not answer the question. Of those who did respond, 35.8% employed hemoccult testing following digital rectal examination, a practice not recommended for CRC screening. Screening guidelines for average-risk patients were generally well adhered to, with 79.9% of respondents recommending screening beginning at age 50. For screening patients at increased risk of CRC owing to family history, only 64.2% of respondents began screening 10 years before the age of the index patient at diagnosis. Physicians who were more likely to follow guidelines were female, in practice fewer than 10 years, trained in Canada, and practising in urban areas. More than 90% of family physicians agreed that a standard provincewide screening program would be beneficial. CONCLUSION: We have identified considerable knowledge gaps with regard to CRC screening. There is confusion about which fecal occult blood tests are recommended for screening. Also, screening guidelines for patients with a family history of CRC are poorly understood. These findings suggest that better physician education about CRC screening is required. Introduction of a provincewide screening program should improve overall screening success.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".