The Quebec Association of Gastroenterology Position Paper on Colorectal Cancer Screening - 2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of death and the third most common cancer in Canada. Evidence suggests that screening can reduce mortality rates and the cost effectiveness of a program compares favourably with initiatives for breast and cervical cancer. The objectives of the Association des gastro-entérologues du Québec Task Force were to determine the need for a policy on screening for colorectal cancer in Quebec, to evaluate the testing methods available and to propose one or more of these alternatives as part of a formal screening program, if indicated. Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), endoscopy (including sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy), barium enema and virtual colonoscopy were considered. Although most clinical efficacy data are available for FOBT and sigmoidoscopy, there are limitations to programs based on these strategies. FOBT has a high false positive rate and a low detection yield, and even a combination of these strategies will miss 24% of cancers. Colonoscopy is the best strategy to both detect and remove polyps and to diagnose colorectal cancer, with double contrast barium enema also being a sensitive detection method. The Task Force recommended the establishment, in Quebec, of a screening program with five- to 10-yearly double contrast barium enema or 10-yearly colonoscopy for individuals aged 50 years or older at low risk. The program should include outcome monitoring, public and professional education to increase awareness and promote compliance, and central coordination with other provincial programs. The program should be evaluated; specific billing codes for screening for colorectal cancer would help facilitate this. Formal feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies in Quebec are now warranted.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.012 |
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".