Current international developments in population screening for colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pilot programmes for screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk individuals using faecal occult blood testing are planned to commence in Australia in 2002. The National Cancer Control Initiative was interested to compare Australia's progress in this area with that of other countries. Information on programmes or pilot programmes for colorectal screening in average-risk individuals was sought by letter, fax or email from cancer organizations, government departments and professional bodies in 55 countries worldwide. Based on the responses received (32 replies), no country was identified as having an active programme for colorectal screening for the general population based on the characteristics of identification of eligible subjects, active recruitment and integrated screening and follow up, which would allow determination of the participation rates, detection rate and outcomes such as the stage distribution of cancer. In the United Kingdom a pilot programme is under way to test the feasibility and acceptability of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population using faecal occult blood testing. In Finland, health authorities have agreed that the evidence is sufficient to embark on a pilot programme, and Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark and Switzerland are considering pilot programmes. From our enquiries, in countries using a planned approach, only the UK appears to be ahead of Australia. The British pilots have commenced earlier and are larger and have a shorter time frame than the Australian pilots.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".