MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Population-Based Estimate of the Extent of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Ontario

2004· article· en· W2011645821 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSigmoidoscopyMedicineColonoscopyBarium enemaIncidence (geometry)Fecal occult bloodColorectal cancerPopulationCohortTest (biology)Cancer registryInternal medicineGeneral surgeryCancerEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The incidence and mortality rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Canada are among the highest in the world. For individuals >/=50 yr, CRC screening is effective in reducing both CRC incidence and mortality. The goal of this research was to conduct a Canadian population-based study of the use of tests and procedures to evaluate the large bowel to estimate the extent of CRC screening. METHODS: We identified an inception cohort of all residents of Ontario aged 50-59 on January 1, 1995, without a previous history of CRC or large-bowel evaluation by five tests or procedures: fecal occult blood test (FOBT), barium enema, rigid sigmoidoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. We followed these individuals to December 31, 2000, identified all tests received, and determined the proportion that received one or more tests or procedures of each type. Data were obtained from three sources: the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) database, the Canadian Institute for Health Information-Discharge Abstract Database (CIHI-DAD), and the Registered Persons Database (RPDB). RESULTS: We identified 982,443 individuals in our inception cohort without prior CRC or large bowel evaluation. The proportion that had at least one test or procedure was less than 10% for each type. The largest proportion (9.3%) had one or more FOBTs. Classified according to the initial test received, 14.5% had a non-endoscopic test (FOBT, barium enema) and 6% had an endoscopic test (rigid sigmoidoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy). The majority (79.5%) had no test or procedure to evaluate the large bowel. CONCLUSION: An extraordinarily low proportion (<20.5%) of screen-eligible 50-59-yr-old men and women in Ontario were screened for CRC during a 6-yr follow-up. Given the high burden of CRC in Canada a major opportunity exists to improve the health of Canadians by increasing our screening efforts.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it