A population-based study of the extent of colorectal cancer screening in men with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because of the increased life-expectancy of persons with HIV, the need for age-appropriate colorectal cancer screening among these patients will increase. We examined rates of colorectal cancer screening among HIV-infected men aged 50 to 65 years. METHODS: We used Ontario's administrative databases to identify all men between the ages of 50 and 65 years who were alive on April 1, 2007, and identified HIV-infected men using a validated case-finding algorithm. We excluded men with a history of colorectal cancer, anal cancer, inflammatory bowel disease and any colorectal investigation in the preceding five-years, and used multivariable regression to compare rates of colorectal cancer screening between men with and without HIV during five years of follow-up. RESULTS: We identified 743,801 men between the ages of 50 and 65 years, of whom 1,432 (0.19%) were HIV-infected. The proportions of men with and without HIV who underwent any screening during the 5-year follow up period were 49.1% (95% CI 46.5% to 51.7%) and 41.4% (95% CI 41.3% to 41.5%), respectively. Compared with HIV-negative men, men with HIV had lower rates of fecal occult blood testing [adjusted rate ratio (aRR) 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.87] and barium-enema radiography (aRR 0.66; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.12), but higher rates of colonoscopy (aRR 1.24; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.37), flexible sigmoidoscopy (aRR 1.72; 95% CI 1.28 to 2.30) and rigid sigmoidoscopy (aRR 2.98; 95% CI 2.26 to 3.93). CONCLUSION: As with the general population of men aged 50 to 65 years, less than half of the population of men with HIV received colorectal cancer screening. Strategies are required to improve uptake of this intervention.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".