Screening men for prostate cancer and colorectal cancer: is practice evidence-based?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Controversy persists about whether men should be screened for prostate cancer. On the other hand, the benefit of colorectal cancer screening has been proven for men starting at age 50. We aimed to examine the rate of exposure to previous screening tests for prostate cancer and colorectal cancer in a cohort of men living in Quebec. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As part of an event promoting early prostate cancer detection, 347 men aged 50 to 69 without an established diagnosis of prostate cancer agreed to reply to questions in a previously validated questionnaire. The self-administered questionnaire, which asked about previous screening tests for prostate cancer and colorectal cancer, was completed on-site. RESULTS: Among men aged 50 to 69, previous exposure to a digital rectal examination (DRE), a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, a fecal occult blood test (FOBT), and sigmoidoscopy were reported by 132 men (62.9%), 73 men (34.8%), 37 men (17.6%), and 39 men (18.6%) , respectively. Across all age strata (< 50, 50-69, > or = 70 years), PSA and DRE testing were highest in men aged 50 to 69 and were 2- to 3-fold higher than screening tests for colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of asymptomatic Canadian men, overall and age-stratified exposure to tests to detect colon cancer early is far from ideal. Conversely, far more men have been subjected to PSA testing and DRE. Patients should be informed of the benefits and risks of colorectal cancer screening and PSA testing.
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 | 0.058 | 0.304 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".