MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551787801 · doi:10.4253/wjge.v8.i19.701

Information seeking and anxiety among colonoscopy-naïve adults: Direct-to-colonoscopy <i>vs</i> traditional consult-first pathways

2016· article· en· W2551787801 on OpenAlex
Jocelyn A. Silvester, Harmandeep Kalkat, Lesley A. Graff, John R. Walker, Harminder Singh, Donald R. Duerksen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyAnxietyFamily medicineSedationThe InternetDistressColorectal cancerInternal medicinePsychiatryCancerSurgeryClinical psychologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To investigate the effects of direct to colonoscopy pathways on information seeking behaviors and anxiety among colonoscopy-naïve patients. METHODS: consult) were compared both within and between the screening and symptom subgroups. RESULTS: 53%), was similar in the Direct and Consult groups, respectively. Only 31% of the 81% who were internet users accessed internet health information. Most sought fundamental information such as what a colonoscopy is or why it is done. Pre-procedure anxiety did not differ between care pathways. Those undergoing colonoscopy for symptoms reported greater anxiety [mean 5.3, 95%CI: 5.0-5.7 (10 point Likert scale)] than those for screening colonoscopy (4.3, 95%CI: 3.9-4.7). CONCLUSION: Procedure indication (cancer screening or symptom investigation) was more closely associated with information seeking behaviors and pre-procedure anxiety than care pathway.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it