MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2105145488 · doi:10.1016/s0016-5085(08)60747-7

S1023 Colonoscopy Performed Outside of Hospital in Ontario: Trends, Patient and Endoscopist Factors

2008· article· en· W2105145488 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Othman Alharbi, Linda Rabeneck, Lawrence Paszat, Duminda N. Wijeysundera, Rinku Sutradhar, Lingsong Yun, Christopher Vinden, Jill Tinmouth

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyAsymptomaticColorectal cancerDysplasiaInternal medicineMultivariate analysisPopulationGastroenterologyCancerEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most frequent cancer and the second cause of mortality related to cancer in Argentina.The detection of premalignant lesions (PML) through colonoscopy has been demonstrated to be effective in the prevention of CRC.It is important to be aware of the prevalence of these lesions to estimate their impact on the prevention of CRC in our population.The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of PML in asymptomatic subjects with different levels of risk of CRC.METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was performed based on the colonoscopy records of asymptomatic subjects screened for CRC in a General Hospital of Buenos Aires City, Argentina, between July 2004 and March 2007.The prevalence of PML was assessed in 2 groups: 1) average risk and 2) first-degree relatives with CRC.Patients with incomplete colonoscopy, poor preparation or second-degree relatives with CRC were excluded.PML was defined as polyps or flat adenomas with low or high-grade dysplasia.Multivariate logistic analysis was performed to establish the association between individual characteristics and PML.RESULTS: Data from 1233 subjects was collected (female= 733, mean age= 67.6 years SD= ±11.2).We found a global prevalence of 24.1% for PML and 1.1% for CRC.Average risk group (n=476; female= 246; mean age=61.8years SD= ±9,06) showed a prevalence of 22.1% for PML , in which 19.2% had low-grade and 2.5% high-grade dysplasia.The prevalence of CRC was 1.05%.First-degree relatives group (n=757; female =487; mean age= 54.9 years SD= ±11.53) showed a prevalence of 25.2% (CI 95%=22.1-28.3), in which 20% had lowgrade and 4.8% high-grade dysplasia.The prevalence of CRC in this group was 1.2%.In the validation set a logistic regression model showed that family history of CRC was independently associated with increased risk of PML (odds ratio=1.54;CI 95%= 1.15-2.05;P=0.004).This difference was greater in younger subjects (table 1).Male sex was also independently associated with an increased risk of PML (odds ratio=1.50;IC 95%= 1.15-1.97;P=0.003).CONCLUSION: Approximately a quarter of this population presented at least one PML and a significantly increased risk in first-degree relatives with CRC and male sex was observed.These results may contribute to issue local guidelines for CRC prevention.Table 1.Prevalence in different age groups

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→