Rates of Complete Colonic Evaluation After Incomplete Colonoscopy and Their Associated Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the increasing use of colonoscopy there is growing concern about the quality of these procedures. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rates of complete colonic evaluation after an incomplete colonoscopy and their associated factors. METHODS: Men and women > or =50 years old living in Ontario on January 1, 1997 who did not have a prior history of colorectal cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, or colonic resection comprised the inception cohort. Receipt of an incomplete colonoscopy between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2002 was determined. Individuals were followed over 1 year and the time from incomplete colonoscopy to complete colonic evaluation was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. A generalized estimating equations model was used to evaluate the association between patient, physician, and setting factors and complete colonic evaluation. RESULTS: Twenty thousand one hundred sixty-six individuals had an incomplete colonoscopy, of whom 29.4% underwent complete colonic evaluation within 1 year after the procedure. Women > or =80 years were less likely to undergo complete colonic evaluation (odds ratio: 0.89; 95% confidence interval: 0.79-0.99), as were those who had their colonoscopy in a private office or clinic (odds ratio: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.67-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Only 29.4% of individuals with an incomplete colonoscopy underwent complete colonic evaluation within 1 year after the procedure. Women > or =80 years and those who had their colonoscopy in a private office or clinic were less likely to undergo complete colonic evaluation. The quality of care provided to older women and colonoscopy practice in office settings may be suboptimal.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".