Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors used computerized decision analysis to estimate the costs of finding and removing an advanced colonic adenoma in patients referred because of a positive fecal occult blood test. An advanced adenoma was defined as a villous adenoma, a tubular adenoma 10 mm or more in size, or a lesion that harboured highgrade dysplasia or cancer. Four strategies were compared: flexible sigmoidoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy plus air contrast barium enema, virtual colonoscopy (CT colography) and colonoscopy. Colonoscopy with polypectomy was undertaken if any of the methods detected a polyp. Probabilities and test characteristics were determined from the literature, and costs were estimated from the provincial fee schedule (Ontario) and local hospital sources. With an assumed 17% probability of an advanced adenoma being present, sigmoidoscopy was the most cost effective strategy at $1930 to find and clear an advanced lesion, but the procredure missed between one-third and almost one-half of the lesions, depending on the depth of insertion. At $2290, colonoscopy was slightly more expensive than sigmoidoscopy and more cost effective than either sigmoidoscopy plus barium enema ($2840) or virtual colonoscopy ($3681), neither of which detected as many advanced adenomas. The authors concluded that colonoscopy is the preferred investigative strategy and that improved access to colonoscopy is an important goal for occult blood 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 | 0.002 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".