Anal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and experiences among men who have sex with men in Ottawa, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anal cancer is rare; however, men who have sex with men (MSM) are at significantly increased risk compared to the general population. In Canada, no widespread screening programs nor accepted standards of care exist to inform primary care physicians (PCP) regarding screening and prevention for MSM patients. Our objective was to assess the knowledge, attitudes and experience of a sample of MSM regarding anal cancer risk, screening, prevention, and acceptability of HPV vaccination. A cross-sectional survey was conducted at an STI clinic for MSM in Ottawa, Ontario over a 20-week period. Descriptive statistics, Pearson's Chi-square test and binary logistic regression for comparisons between groups were completed. Fifty-five percent of respondents were aware of increased anal cancer risk among MSM; 47.7% were aware that HPV is the primary cause. Only 14.8% of men with a PCP had discussed anal cancer screening and prevention with their PCP. Of those who had not, 86.0% indicated they would be comfortable having that discussion. Just under 8% reported receiving an appropriate screening test. The HPV vaccination rate was 16.2%. The majority of respondents who had not been vaccinated expressed openness to vaccination. A clear deficiency was observed in terms of MSM knowledge regarding anal cancer risk and inclusion of this health concern in their primary care. This highlights the need for more discussion between MSM and their PCPs to ensure MSM are aware of their risk and of available screening and prevention options recognizing the limited evidence-base for anal cancer 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".