MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558155414 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v9n6p145

Knowledge and Awareness about Colorectal Cancer and Its Screening Guidelines among Doctors in Al Ahsa, Eastern Province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

2016· article· en· W2558155414 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bathula Surendra, Muhammad Mujtaba Hashir, Fahad Salman Al Harbi, Mohammed Jassim Al Nuwaysir, Khalid Majed Al Khaldi, Abdulrahman M. Alqahtani

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerColonoscopyFamily medicineIncidence (geometry)PopulationCancerEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Cancer is a major public health problem. Worldwide, colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of deaths due to cancer in both men and women. Among, Saudi men, CRC is the most common malignancy while it is the third most common among Saudi women. Over, two decades the incidence and deaths due to CRC have been steadily increasing in Saudi Arabia. Regular and timely screening has the potential in reducing the incidence and deaths due to colorectal cancer. The present study is conducted to evaluate the knowledge and awareness about colorectal cancer and its screening among the doctors.OBJECTIVES: To measure the frequency of knowledge and awareness about colorectal cancer and its screening guidelines among doctors in Al-Ahssa.METHODS: A questionnaire based survey of the doctors (Specialists & residents), working in different hospitals and primary health centers under the Ministry of Health in Al Ahssa region, Eastern province, KSA. Knowledge and awareness about colorectal cancer and its screening among the doctors is evaluated.RESULTS: Over 80% of the doctors knew, screening reduces deaths due to CRC. Only 60% were aware about the risk factors and less than 50% knew the clinical features of CRC. About 60% doctors agreed Colonoscopy is gold standard screening test. While, less than 60% knew the ideal age to initiate screening and the actual interval of screening tests in the standard risk and high-risk population. Fewer than 25% doctors were aware about the American cancer society recommended screening guidelines. Majority of the doctors expressed keen interest to know and receive information about CRC and its screening guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Regular and timely screening reduces deaths due to CRC. There is a need for improving knowledge and awareness of doctors about CRC and its screening. Awareness among the doctors improves uptake of screening by the general and high-risk population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207