Repeated faecal occult blood testing is associated with decreased advanced colorectal cancer risk: A population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between repeated faecal occult blood testing and advanced colorectal cancer risk at population level in Canada. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all Ontario residents aged 56-74 diagnosed with colorectal cancer from 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2010, identified using health administrative data. The primary outcome was stage IV colorectal cancer, and primary exposure was faecal occult blood testing use within five years prior to colorectal cancer diagnosis. Patients were categorized into four mutually exclusive groups based on their exposure to faecal occult blood testing in the five years prior to colorectal cancer diagnosis: none, pre-diagnostic, repeated, and sporadic. Logistic regression was utilized to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: Of 7753 patients (median age 66, interquartile range 61-70, 62% male) identified, 1694 (22%) presented with stage I, 2056 (27%) with stage II, 2428 (31%) with stage III, and 1575 (20%) with stage IV colorectal cancer. There were 4092 (53%) with no record of prior faecal occult blood testing, 1485 (19%) classified as pre-diagnostic, 1693 (22%) as sporadic, and 483 (6%) as repeated faecal occult blood testing. After adjusting for confounders, patients who had repeated faecal occult blood testing were significantly less likely to present with stage IV colorectal cancer at diagnosis (Odds ratio 0.46, 95% Confidence Interval 0.34-0.62) than those with no prior faecal occult blood testing. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated faecal occult blood testing is associated with a decreased risk of advanced colorectal cancer. Our findings support the use of organized screening programmes that employ repeated faecal occult blood testing to improve colorectal cancer outcomes at population level.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".