Ontario's ColonCancerCheck: Results from Canada's First Province-Wide Colorectal Cancer Screening Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ColonCancerCheck (CCC), Canada's first province-wide colorectal cancer screening program, was publicly launched in Ontario in April 2008. The objective of this article is to report on key indicators of CCC Program performance since its inception. METHODS: The CCC Program recommends biennial guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) for persons 50 to 74 years of age at average risk for colorectal cancer and colonoscopy for those at increased risk (having one or more first-degree relatives with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer). Opportunistic screening with colonoscopy is available in Ontario. Five data sources were used to compute indicators of program performance during 2008 to 2011. The indicators computed were FOBT participation, overdue for screening, FOBT positivity, positive predictive value (PPV) of FOBT for colorectal cancer, diagnostic follow-up, and colorectal cancer detection rate. RESULTS: In 2011, FOBT participation was 29.8% and 46.8% of the target population was overdue for screening. FOBT positivity was higher among men (5.1%) than women (3.5%), and the PPV of FOBT for cancer was 4.3% in 2011. Follow-up colonoscopy within 6 months of a positive FOBT was completed by 74.6% of Program participants in 2011. The cancer detection rates for FOBT and for colonoscopy in those with a family history were 1.3 per 1,000 and 4.0 per 1,000, respectively, in 2011. CONCLUSION: These results provide an early indication of Program performance and provide findings relevant to other organized colorectal cancer screening programs. IMPACT: The greater cancer detection rate in those at increased risk due to family history who undergo colonoscopy screening suggests that a strategy of risk stratification will enhance the impact of FOBT-based screening programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".