Wait Time for Endoscopic Evaluation at a Canadian Tertiary Care Centre: Comparison with Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been considerable concern regarding wait times for Canadian health care, which led the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) to develop specific wait time targets. OBJECTIVES: To quantify wait times for endoscopic procedures at a tertiary care centre and correlate these with clinical presentation, impact on quality of life (QOL) and final diagnosis; and to determine how well the CAG wait time targets are being met. METHODS: Patients completed a 12-item questionnaire regarding wait times and their impact on QOL. A blind review was performed of the endoscopic results, with a specific focus on correlating wait time with a final diagnosis of serious and treatable diseases. RESULTS: The average total wait time for the 417 participants in the present study was 229 days; 78.6% did not meet CAG wait time targets. The wait time for screening colonoscopy was longer, and the proportion of patients meeting wait time targets was significantly smaller, than for patients referred with iron deficiency anemia or a positive fecal occult blood test result. The 41 patients deemed to have a high-impact diagnosis established by endoscopy had a median wait time of 115 days, and only 23.5% met wait time targets. Overall, 38.4% of patients believed that their wait was too long, 13.9% missed school or work in the preceding month because of gastrointestinal symptoms and 23% reported being very worried about having a serious disease. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients waiting for endoscopy did not meet CAG wait time targets, with the screening colonoscopy group faring the worst. Many of these patients await a definitive diagnosis of serious diseases that negatively impact QOL.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".