Long-Term Follow-Up of a Community Assignment, One-Time Endoscopic Screening Study of Esophageal Cancer in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There are no global screening recommendations for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Endoscopic screening has been investigated in areas of high incidence in China since the 1970s. This study aimed to evaluate whether an endoscopic screening and intervention program could reduce mortality caused by ESCC. METHODS: Residents age 40 to 69 years were recruited from communities with high rates of ESCC. Fourteen villages were selected as the intervention communities. Ten villages not geographically adjacent to intervention villages were selected for comparison. Participants in the intervention group were screened once by endoscopy with Lugol's iodine staining, and those with dysplasia or occult cancer were treated. All intervention participants and a sample consisting of one tenth of the control group completed questionnaires. We compared cumulative ESCC incidence and mortality between the two groups. RESULTS: Three thousand three hundred nineteen volunteers (48.62%) from an eligible population of 6,827 were screened in the intervention group. Seven hundred ninety-seven volunteers from an eligible population of 6,200 in the control group were interviewed. Six hundred fifty-two incident and 542 fatal ESCCs were identified during the 10-year follow-up. A reduction in cumulative mortality in the intervention group versus the control group was apparent (3.35% v 5.05%, respectively; P < .001). Furthermore, the intervention group had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of ESCC versus the control group (4.17% v 5.92%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION: We showed that endoscopic screening and intervention significantly reduced mortality caused by esophageal cancer. Detection and treatment of preneoplastic lesions also led to a reduction in the incidence of this highly fatal cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".