Is the Effectiveness of Colonoscopy "Good Enough" for Population-Based Screening?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
neoplasia detection in patients with no previous colonoscopy in this study was quite similar to rates in the literature ( 10 , 11 ). The rate of advanced neoplasia detection in those with previous colonoscopy was higher than rates reported for patients with a history of negative colonoscopy ( 12 ) but was lower than rates reported for patients with a history of previously identifi ed advanced neoplasia ( 13 ), indicating a blend of higher- and lowerrisk individuals in this group. The association between previous colonoscopy and detection of advanced neoplasia at screening in the study, as measured by the adjusted prevalence ratio, indicates a substantial protective effect of colonoscopy (prevalence ratio = 0.52, 95% confi dence interval [CI] = 0.37 to 0.73). However, the association varied with site of neoplasia; previous colonoscopy was strongly associated with detection of left-sided advanced neoplasia (prevalence ratio = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.53) but not right-sided advanced neoplasia (prevalence ratio = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.63 to 1.76). Overall, the rate of right-sided advanced neoplasia was low (3% of those undergoing screening colonoscopy in both groups); however, as a proportion of all advanced neoplastic lesions, right-sided lesions were overrepresented in the group having previous colonoscopy (50% of advanced neoplastic lesions were right-sided) as compared with those with no previous colonoscopy (23% of advanced neoplastic lesions were right-sided). This study has clear limitations, and the estimates of association
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".