A Population-Based Estimate of the Extent of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".