Colorectal Cancer Screening: Video-Reviewed Flexible Sigmoidoscopy by Nurse Endoscopists — A Canadian Community-Based Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common incident cancer and the second most fatal cancer in Canada. Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) is one of the modalities under consideration for CRC screening. The present series reports on a screening program of FS performed by nonphysician endoscopists in a Canadian community setting, with video review of procedures by physicians and recommendation of follow-up colonoscopy where polyps are identified. RESULTS: Five hundred twenty-five, average-risk, asymptomatic patients were examined. After exclusion of inappropriate referrals, 488 remained for analysis. The duration and extent of examination were comparable with those of previous studies elsewhere. Compliance with suggested follow-up was 97.3%. Polyps were identified at FS in 15.4% of examinees. In 8.2% of patients, the polyps were neoplastic at subsequent histology. Four malignant lesions were detected, all at an early stage. There were no complications of FS. INTERPRETATION: This report shows that FS can be carried out safely and effectively by nonphysician personnel in a community setting in Canada. The manpower cost for nonphysician operators is considerably less than that for specialist physician endoscopists. This approach deserves consideration in cost effectiveness analyses of CRC 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".