Evaluating Screening Age for Colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate colonoscopies in patients aged 40 to 49 and 50 to 59 years from multiple endoscopy surgery centers serving a wide geographical area. METHODS: An observational prospective multicenter quality assurance review was conducted in 49 Ambulatory Surgery Centers in 17 states with 315 gastroenterologists. Care of patients and routine of gastroenterologists continued as standard practice with patients attending for purposes of screening, surveillance, and symptoms. RESULTS: There were 1688 and 5090 consecutive qualified patients aged 40 to 49 and 50 to 59 years, respectively, receiving colonoscopies in a designated 4 week period. There was no significant difference (P=0.55) in the screening category between ages 40 to 49 (n=420) and 50 to 59 years (n=2705) in incidence of colon polyps although the older age group had more than 6 times the number of patients than the younger age group. Age group of 40 to 49-year-old males (21.5%) are at similar risk to 40 to 49-year-old females (21.1%) in development of carcinoma and adenoma polyps combined. Age group of 50 to 59-year-old males (31.3%) appear at greater risk (P<0.0001) than age 50 to 59-year-old females (18.4%) in development of carcinoma and adenoma polyps combined in the screening category. For surveillance and symptom categories significant differences (P<0.05) occurred between both age groups 40 to 49 and 50 to 59 years for males but not females in development of carcinoma and adenoma polyps combined. CONCLUSIONS: The equal risk of colon polyps in screening colonoscopies for age 40 to 49 and 50 to 59 years suggest reexamination of current recommendations for 50 years as the beginning age for screening colonoscopy. Further studies are needed to examine sex differences and cost effectiveness of screening colonoscopies beginning at age 40 years and to explore these factors as well in surveillance and symptom categories.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".