Colorectal cancer detection in a rural community. Development of a colonoscopy screening program.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM BEING ADDRESSED: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a substantial cause of death and morbidity in Canada. Endoscopy screening by colonoscopy has been recommended, but widespread implementation is impossible because it is difficult to obtain, especially in rural areas. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: To screen for CRC safely and effectively using colonoscopy performed by non-specialist endoscopists in rural areas. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Health providers and community organizations were informed about the screening program. Patients between the ages of 50 and 75 and those at high risk of CRC based on family history were screened. Measures of safety and effectiveness were monitored. In 2 years of screening, one of 152 patients was found to have CRC, and 23.7% had adenomatous polyps. There were no complications. Rates of CRC and adenoma detection and cecal intubation were similar to rates found in other screening studies. CONCLUSION: It was not difficult to design and implement a CRC screening program in our small rural community. Colonoscopies performed by family physicians have been effective, and there have been no serious complications.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".