Participation in colorectal cancer screening among Chinese Americans.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States and the third most common malignant neoplasm worldwide. Chinese Americans are one of the ethnic minority groups who have the lowest rates of CRC screening. The purpose of this study was to describe CRC screening among less acculturated Chinese Americans and to identify factors associated with CRC screening. METHODS: We performed a review of 383 patients' medical records at a large community health clinic in Seattle's metropolitan area between July 2003 and September 2004. Outcome measurements included receiving fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) in the last 12 months, sigmoidoscopy in the previous 5 years and/or colonoscopy in the past 10 years. Compliance with CRC screening was assessed by documentation in patients' medical records. RESULTS: The overall use of CRC screening per guidelines was 40%. Only 72(19%) patients had their FOBT test in the last 12 months. Eighty one patients (21%) had colonoscopy in the last 10 years and eleven (3%) of the patients had sigmoidoscopy in the last 5 years. Chi-square analyses revealed no significant differences between users and non-users of FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy in terms of age, gender, insurance status or language. DISCUSSION: Participation in CRC screening among less acculturated Chinese Americans was lower than rates derived from previous self-reported surveys. Research of effective preventive programs promoting annual FOBT is vital to increasing the use of CRC screening among this population.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".