A197 A PREDICTION MODEL OF RISK OF HARBOURING ADVANCED COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS IN LOW TO MODERATE RISK PERSONS OVER AGE 50
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colonoscopy decreases the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and CRC-related death, primarily through timely detection and treatment of advanced colorectal neoplasms (ACNs), including CRC and high-risk adenomas (HRA). Unfortunately, risk stratification methods for colonoscopy are poor, and less than 20% of persons over age 50 who undergo colonoscopy are diagnosed with ACNs. Current guidelines do not adequately account for the simultaneous contribution of multiple major and minor risk factors and protective factors for developing ACNs. Combined with increasing demands for colonoscopy, Canadians now faces wait times that greatly exceed recommended targets, escalating colonoscopy-related costs and poor value for the money spent on these procedures. Widespread implementation of population-based FIT screening in average-risk patients in coming years will compound these problems. To derive prediction models that discriminate between individuals who are likely or unlikely to harbour ACNs. We studied 11,719 consecutive persons aged 50 years or older who underwent outpatient colonoscopy at The Ottawa Hospital between 2008 and 2012 for low-to-moderate risk indications, including non-life-threatening signs or symptoms, personal history of adenomas, family history of CRC and average-risk screening. We excluded individuals who had high risk or rare indications, as well as those who had incomplete colonoscopy, poor bowel preparation, or important missing information. We obtained model variables through chart review and linkage to Ontario health administrative databases. We tested 22 candidate predictors, encompassing colonoscopy indication, age, sex, residential setting, household income, co-morbidity burden, cancer history, and prior colonoscopy and polypectomy exposure. We used multivariable logistic regression with stepwise selection to derive our final models. We tested the performance of our primary models in multiple subgroups. Our final models retained eight variables that are easily ascertainable in an office setting. The models showed excellent discriminatory capacity (c-statistic > 0.95) and calibration (p-value > 0.5 for goodness-of-fit test) for CRC in the main cohort and all subgroups, and improved the specificity of colonoscopy for detecting ACNs without significantly impacting sensitivity. Applying the models to our derivation cohort would have allowed for a 25% reduction in colonoscopy volume with a CRC miss rate of < 1% and a HRA miss rate of < 10%. We have derived predictive models with high discriminatory capacity for ACNs that could help optimize the use of colonoscopy resources in clinical practice. If successfully validated, these models have the potential to improve the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy. Figure 1. Receiver operating curve for model of colorectal cancer (area under curve = 0.96) Academic Health Sciences Centres Alternate Funding Plan Innovation Fund (administered by The Ottawa Hospital Academic Medical Association)
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".