Sex-based Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Research suggests that recurrence and survival from colorectal cancer are worse in men than in women but the causes for this are unclear. Our aims were to (1) assess for sex differences in colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) within a large, contemporary population-based sample in California; and (2) examine the impact of income, education, and insurance status on sex differences in CRCS. METHODS: Screening-eligible patients were identified from the 2007 US California Health Interview Survey. Up-to-date, CRCS was defined as fecal occult blood test within 1 year, flexible sigmoidoscopy within 5 years, or colonoscopy within 10 years. Logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate the relationship between sex and CRCS. Stratified analyses on the basis of self-reported income (low vs. high), education (≤ high school vs. > high school), and health insurance status (insured vs. uninsured) were performed to determine if sex differences in screening were modified by these parameters. RESULTS: In total, 11,260 men and 17,705 women were identified: mean ages were 65 and 66 years, respectively, and 63% were white in both the sexes. In the entire cohort, only two thirds of men and women reported undergoing up-to-date CRCS. Women had decreased odds of CRCS than men, after adjusting for potential confounders. Stratified analyses indicated that sex disparities in CRCS persisted among the insured, educated, and high-income earners. CONCLUSIONS: Women are less likely to undergo CRCS than men, but poor health care access is associated with low CRCS in both the sexes. Conventional strategies aimed at improving health care access should also include sex-specific interventions that raise awareness about preventive care to most effectively optimize CRCS.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".