MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047551163 · doi:10.1136/gut.2011.239301.141

Colorectal cancer rates following a barium enema or colonoscopy: Table 1

2011· article· en· W2047551163 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T Maheswaran, Richard Tighe

Bibliographic record

VenueGut · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBarium enemaColonoscopyMedicineColorectal cancerIncidence (geometry)GastroenterologyInternal medicinePopulationCancerAscending colonGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Colonoscopy and removal of adenomatous polyps has been shown to reduce subsequent cancer risk. In Canada, Rabeneck et al found that over a 14 year period, a negative colonoscopy was associated with a reduced incidence of subsequent colorectal cancer (CRC) in the distal colon; but little reduction in the incidence of proximal CRC at least for the first 7 years after the colonoscopy.1 With this in mind we reviewed the incidence and distribution of CRC in our population following colonic evaluation. Our unit is the third largest colorectal cancer unit in the UK. Between 2005 and 2010 there were 2611 cases of CRC, during this period 17 263 colonoscopies and 13 767 barium enemas were performed. Table 1 PTU-013 The location of a CRC in those patients who had had a previous colonoscopy or barium enema Location All CRC (2611) Prior colonoscopy (13) Prior barium enema (96) Left 62% (1619) 46.2% (6) 42.5% (45) Right 38% (992) 53.8% (7) 48.1% (51) Methods By interrogating the patient administration system of our hospital we were able to identify those patients who had had a colonoscopy or barium enema done over 12 months prior to their CRC diagnosis being made, we collected data from the last 10 years. We chose this 12 month period to avoid those patients who had had an examination that led to a diagnosis of CRC. Results 106 patients had a barium enema between 12 and 118 months before a diagnosis of colorectal cancer was made. 48.1% (51) were located in the right side of the colon, 42.5% (45) were located in the left side of the colon. In the remaining 9.4% (10) the location was unknown. These missed cancers were most frequently located in the caecum 23.5% (25), sigmoid 16.9% (18) and ascending colon 13.2% (14). 13 patients had a colonoscopy between 25 and 116 months prior to a diagnosis of colorectal cancer being made. 53.8% (7) of these were located in the right side of the colon and 46.2% (6) of these were located in the left side of the colon. These tumours were most frequently located in the caecum 30.7% (4), transverse colon 23.0% (3) and rectum 23.0% (3). Conclusion There was significantly more right sided cancers in the prior colonoscopy and barium enema groups (chi squared = 11.29, p < 0.001) consistent with earlier data from Canada. There was a ten fold increased miss rate with barium enema over colonoscopy and this would support the service moving away from barium enemas to 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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGutSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207