A259 PHYSCIAN FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH INAPPROPRIATE FECAL IMMUNOCHEMICAL TESTING.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) is offered in British Columbia (BC) for all patients between the ages of 50 and 74 years with the BC Colon Screening Program. The program recalls participants with a negative FIT for repeat screening in two years. Despite these recommendations, some physicians in the screening program have ordered FITs for screening program participants who have had a negative FIT prior to the program recall. To identify factors associated with inappropriate FIT utilization. This is a retrospective review of all FITs ordered from November 2015 until June 2017. For each FIT, the participant’s chart was reviewed to identify if a previous FIT had occurred in the prior 21 months. The British Columbia’s College of Physicians and Surgeon’s database was used to identify location of referring physician by postal code, date of graduation from medical school, and gender. Physician variables were examined with logistic regression to determine any association with inappropriate FIT. Over 25 % of all FIT participants are returning early for screening. Rural physicians were more likely to order FIT early when compared with urban physicians (OR 1.18 CI 1.11–1.26 p-value < 0.001). There were significantly lower rates of ordered inappropriate FITs for physicians who graduated from medical school after 1980 compared to those who graduated earlier (OR 0.58 p-value < 0.007). There were no differences in the rates of inappropriate FITs between male and female referring physicians. Following a negative FIT, repeat FIT utilization prior to recommended recall was associated with rural location of the ordering physician and longer duration of practice. None
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".