Sustained participation, colonoscopy uptake and adenoma detection rates over two rounds of the Tallaght–Trinity College colorectal cancer screening programme with the faecal immunological test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies to date support the use of the faecal immunological test (FIT) in colorectal cancer screening programmes, and it has been widely adopted across Europe, Canada, Australia, and the USA. Successive screening rounds are necessary to detect and prevent colorectal cancer. The overall success of FIT screening will depend on several factors, the most important probably being the acceptability of repeated screening rounds. Being a newer form of occult blood testing, there is little data available on its overall efficacy over time. AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess key performance indices during a second round of FIT screening in an Irish cohort and to compare results between successive rounds. METHODS: A biennial, two tests, two-step design with postal invites and colonoscopy offered to anyone with a single FIT greater than 100 ngHb/ml was used. Recommended key performance measures were assessed and compared, including participation, positivity, colonoscopy uptake and adenoma and cancer detection rates. RESULTS: In round two, 9863 individuals (98.6%) of the round one cohort were contacted. The round two participation rate was 47.5% (n=4685), only slightly lower than the 51% registered in round one. Male sex and younger age were associated with lower uptake. Overall positivity decreased from 10 to 8% over time (P<0.0001). Although the number of cancers detected during round two decreased significantly, overall neoplasia detection rates remained stable; positive predictive values for cancer and adenoma were 4 versus 1% and 37 versus 35%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Repeated rounds of FIT screening in the Tallaght-Trinity College cohort achieved stable participation and neoplasia detection rates, suggesting that this mode of screening is both effective and acceptable to patients in the long term.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".