Colorectal cancer screening: practices and attitudes of gastroenterologists, internists and surgeons.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care has recommended the use of annual or biennial fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and flexible sigmoidoscopy in the periodic health examination of asymptomatic people over 50 years of age. Therefore, we decided to ascertain the current colorectal cancer (CRC) screening practices and attitudes of surgeons, gastroenterologists and internists. METHODS: In June 2002 (with a final mailing in December 2002), a questionnaire was sent to all gastroenterologists, internists and surgeons in Alberta. It included items on demographic and practice characteristics, CRC screening practices and opinions about CRC screening. RESULTS: Responses were received from 42 gastroenterologists, 83 internists and 68 surgeons. Overall, 141 of 187 respondents (75.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 68.6%-81.4%) recommended that average-risk adults undergo CRC screening. Internists were less likely to recommend screening than either gastroenterologists or surgeons (95% CI for the difference 7.2%-32.8%). The most commonly recommended screening test was colonoscopy (70%), followed by FOBT (65%), flexible sigmoidoscopy (47%) and air-contrast barium enema (31%). Colonoscopy was the only test recommended by 7 (22.6%) of 33 gastroenterologists, 9 (16.4%) of 59 surgeons and 3 (6.1%) of 49 internists. Respondents were more likely to list barriers to the use of colonoscopy (mean 5 barriers) for screening than for either FOBT or flexible sigmoidoscopy (mean 2 barriers for both tests). Only 3 respondents indicated that they themselves would not undergo screening. Colonoscopy was the only screening test that 135 (70.0%) of the 193 would themselves undergo. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of Alberta specialists recommend CRC screening for average-risk adults. Colonoscopy was the most commonly recommended test, despite the perception of more barriers to that technique and the 2001 guidelines prepared by the Canadian Task Force for Preventive Health Care, which did not support colonoscopy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".