MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149808263

Factors associated with delays to medical assessment and diagnosis for patients with colorectal cancer.

2012· article· en· W2149808263 on OpenAlexaffabout
Corey Tomlinson, Clarence Wong, Heather‐Jane Au, Dan Schiller

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerMedical recordAbdominal painInternal medicineStage (stratigraphy)Cancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with delays to medical assessment and diagnosis for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). DESIGN: Data were collected through a standardized questionnaire. Clinical records were also reviewed. When necessary, patients were contacted by a member of the study team to collect missing data and confirm information. SETTING: Cross Cancer Institute in Edmonton, Alta. PARTICIPANTS: Patients newly diagnosed with a histologically proven colorectal adenocarcinoma were identified and eligible for the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Associations between symptoms, tumour stage at operation, symptom duration, and tumour location were sought to identify factors associated with a delay in diagnosis of CRC. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 93 patients. A total of 49% of patients had symptoms of CRC present for 1 month or less before seeing a physician, and 51% had symptoms for longer than 1 month. Seventy-five (86%) patients initially presented to family physicians for assessment, while 12 (14%) patients presented to the emergency department for their first physician encounters. Only 33 (38%) patients had digital rectal examinations during their first visits. Women were more likely to present to physicians with longer than 1 month of symptoms, while men were more likely to present with less than 1 month of symptoms (P = .03). Abdominal pain, blood in the stool, and change in stool size were the most frequent symptoms encountered. Twenty-two (26%) patients delayed seeking treatment because they thought their symptoms were not serious and 12 (14%) believed that their family physicians had taken inappropriate action. Fifteen (18%) patients attributed their delays to waiting too long for specialist referral and diagnostic tests. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the important role patients and physicians both play in delays in the diagnosis of CRC. Efforts to diminish future delays must focus on educating the public and practising physicians about important symptoms and signs of CRC. Additionally, the value of a digital rectal examination must be emphasized, along with continued promotion of CRC screening.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207