Rates of Screening for Breast, Colorectal, and Cervical Cancers in Older People With Cognitive Impairment or Dementia: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Cancer screening may not be appropriate for some older people. We compare the likelihood of screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancers in older people with versus without cognitive impairment or dementia. Method: Systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (to March 9, 2018) for articles reporting screening for colon, breast, and cervical cancers in patients with and without cognitive impairment or dementia. Studies were summarized quantitatively (random effects meta-analysis), according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Studies reported data 1989-2008. The rate of screening for breast cancer by mammography was lower in women with cognitive impairment or dementia compared with those without (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.71, 0.91], p = .0007, six studies, N = 18,562). The rates of screening for cervical cancer by Pap smear (pooled OR = 0.88, 95% CI = [0.71, 1.08], p = 0.22, five studies, N = 409,131) and colorectal cancer by fecal occult blood test (pooled OR = 0.87, 95% CI = [0.55, 1.38], p = .55, two studies, N = 2,718) were not significantly lower in people with cognitive impairment or dementia. Conclusion: These historical rates provide a baseline for discussions around the need for more specific guidance to assist with decisions to discontinue screening. The study also identifies a gap in reported knowledge with respect to screening under current guidelines.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".