Utilization of pre‐operative imaging for colon cancer: A population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of pre-operative imaging for colon cancer and to identify factors associated with utilization in routine clinical practice. METHODS: This population-based, retrospective cohort study used a random sample of 25% of colon cancer patients treated with surgery in the province of Ontario (2002-2008). Pre-operative imaging (<16 weeks from surgery) of the chest, abdomen-pelvis was identified. Modified poisson regression was used to analyze factors associated with practice patterns. RESULTS: Of the 7,249 included patients, 48% had pre-operative imaging (CT abdomen and imaging of the chest) in keeping with guideline recommendations. The rate of guideline concordant pre-operative imaging increased over time: 64% in the most recent study period (2006-2008) versus 31% (2002-2004); P < 0.001. Variables associated with use of chest imaging: Age, co-morbidity, surgeon volume, and geographic region; no association with gender, hospital volume, or socio-economic status. Variables associated with use of abdomen imaging: Hospital volume and geographic region; no association with age, gender, comorbidity, socio-economic status, or surgeon volume. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, the majority of patients were not receiving pre-operative imaging that was in line with clinical practice guidelines; however, use increased over time indicating a possible association with dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. J. Surg. Oncol. 2017;115:202-207. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".