Association of socioeconomic status and receipt of colorectal cancer investigations: a population-based retrospective cohort study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the Canadian health care system was designed to ensure equal access, inequities persist. It is not known if inequities exist for receipt of investigations used to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC). We examined the association between socioeconomic status and receipt of colorectal investigation in Ontario. METHODS: People aged 50 to 70 years living in Ontario on Jan. 1, 1997, who did not have a history of CRC, inflammatory bowel disease or colorectal investigation within the previous 5 years were followed until death or Dec. 31, 2001. Receipt of any colorectal investigation between 1997 and 2001 inclusive was determined by means of linked administrative databases. Income was imputed as the mean household income of the person's census enumeration area. Multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between the receipt of any colorectal investigation and income. RESULTS: Of the study cohort of 1,664,188 people, 21.2% received a colorectal investigation in 1997-2001. Multivariate analysis demonstrated a significant association between receipt of any colorectal investigation and income (p < 0.001); people in the highest-income quintile had higher odds of receiving any colorectal investigation (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-1.40) and of receiving colonoscopy (adjusted OR 1.50; 95% CI 1.48-1.53). INTERPRETATION: Socioeconomic status is associated with receipt of colorectal investigations in Ontario. Only one-fifth of people in the screening-eligible age group received any colorectal investigation. Further work is needed to determine the reason for this low rate and to explore whether it affects CRC mortality.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it