Longitudinal Rates of Colon Cancer Screening Use in Winnipeg, Canada: The Experience of a Universal Health-Care System with an Organized Colon Screening Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We examined trends in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening (fecal occult blood test (FOBT), colonoscopy, and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS)) and differences in CRC screening by income in a population with an organized CRC screening program and universal health-care coverage. METHODS: Individuals who had an FOBT, colonoscopy, or FS were identified from the provincial Physician Claims database and the population-based colon cancer screening registry. Trends in age-standardized rates were determined. Logistic regression was performed to explore the association between CRC screening and income quintiles by year. RESULTS: Up-to-date CRC screening (FOBT, colonoscopy, or FS) increased over time for men and women, all age groups, and all income quintiles. Up-to-date CRC screening was very high among 65- to 69- and 70- to 74-year-olds (70% and 73%, respectively). There was a shift toward the use of an FOBT for CRC screening for individuals in the lower income quintiles. The disparity in colonoscopy/FS coverage by income quintile was greater in 2012 than in 1995. Overall, there was no reduction in disparities by income in up-to-date CRC screening nor did the rate of increase in up-to-date CRC screening or FOBT use change after the introduction of the organized provincial CRC screening program. CONCLUSIONS: CRC screening is increasing over time for both men and women and all age groups. However, a disparity in up-to-date CRC screening by income persisted even with an organized CRC screening program in a universal health-care setting.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".