Specialists’ Perceptions of Hereditary Colorectal Cancer Screening in Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is particularly valuable in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), where a substantial proportion of CRC cases have a hereditary link. We examined the perceptions of gastroenterologists and general surgeons with respect to screening practices for patients with hereditary crc. METHODS: We surveyed all gastroenterologists and general surgeons in NL to determine demographic and professional practice characteristics and screening knowledge, practices, and attitudes for four groups of patients with hereditary CRC. RESULTS: Of the 43 eligible physicians, 36 (83.7%) responded. Most of the physicians surveyed knew the correct age to start screening, preferred screening by colonoscopy, had a systematic means in their own practice of prioritizing patients for screening, and felt that family doctors or patients (or both) should be responsible for monitoring screening compliance. Most physicians reported that patients with hereditary nonpolyposis CRC and familial adenomatous polyposis waited 3 months for screening; patients with a family history of CRC or adenomatous polyp waited 6 months or longer. Although respondents agreed on the need for a province-wide CRC registry [4.36 on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)], they disagreed that wait times were reasonable (2.81) and that other health professionals should perform colonoscopies (2.86). They were equivocal about the need for centralized bookings (3.25) and about whether genetic testing is useful for prioritizing patients (3.25). CONCLUSIONS: Gastroenterologists and general surgeons in NL were knowledgeable about screening, but had varying opinions about individual roles in screening, wait times, and the means for prioritizing and providing screening for patients with hereditary CRC.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".