Impact of colonoscopic screening in male and female Lynch syndrome carriers with an <i>MSH2</i> mutation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) in Lynch syndrome (LS) carriers is very high. To determine the impact of colonoscopic screening in 54 male and 98 female MSH2 mutation carriers, outcomes were compared with 94 males and 76 females who were not screened. CRC incidence and survival in the screened group were compared to that expected, derived from the non-screened group. To correct for survivor bias, controls were matched for age at entry into screening and also for gender. In males, median age to CRC was 58 years, whereas expected was 47 years (p = 0.000), and median survival was 66 years vs 62 years (p = 0.034). In screened females, median age to CRC was 79 years compared to 57 years in the non-screened group (p = 0.000), and median survival was 80 years compared with expected of 63 years (p = 0.001). Twenty percent of males and 7% of females developed an interval CRC within 2 years of previous colonoscopy. Although colonoscopic screening was associated with decreased CRC risk and better survival, CRCs continued to occur. CRC development may be further reduced by decreasing the screening interval to 1 year and improving quality of colonoscopy.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".