Reflex Lynch syndrome screening by example: A review of existing programs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
543 Background: Reflex screening for Lynch Syndrome (LS) has been recommended, however occurs in few jurisdictions worldwide. We aimed to explore program structure, pathology testing, implementation challenges and future directions of existing reflex LS screening programs in various jurisdictions to develop best practices for future programs. Methods: We identified existing reflex LS screening programs through a literature search and expert opinion. Information on program implementation, patient population, family care involvement, monitoring and improvements was collected through semi-structured interviews with program leaders, pathologists, technical staff, and family physicians. Pattern, thematic and content analysis were used to analyze and extract program features, sequence of pathological testing and best practices. Results: 26 participants across 7 programs completed interviews. There were 3 government-funded, population-based programs (Manitoba, Western Australia, and New South Wales), 2 private health management organization programs implemented across affiliated healthcare centers (Pennsylvania and Southern California); and 2 hospital-based programs (Ohio and Utah). Five programs screened all patients with CRC for LS while 2 programs designated an upper age limit for screening. The majority of programs tested tumor samples for LS using a combination of immunohistochemistry and BRAF mutation analysis. In jurisdictions relying on surgeons' referral to genetic counseling without navigation, uptake of genetic testing was lower than expected. Programs implementing early education of surgeons and pathologists in reflex screening procedures reported confidence in skills, collaboration and communication. Communication materials for family members of affected individuals were recommended to increase family engagement in genetic counselling. Conclusions: There are a variety of reflex LS screening programs with varying standards and protocols. Program design influences uptake of genetic testing; programs with an imbedded navigation plan for those who need genetic counseling enhance rates of adherence. This should be an important consideration when planning future reflex screening programs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".