Non-invasive colorectal cancer screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world and is the second most common cause of Canadian cancer-related deaths in men and the third most common in women. Most CRC appears to arise from the gradual development and advancement of colonic adenomatous polyps to cancerous tissue. This developmental process of CRC is the rationale for screening programs which aim to reduce CRC-related morbidity and mortality by early detection and removal of adenomatous polyps, specifically advanced adenomas. Although both the gFOBT and FIT function to detect occult bleeding in asymptomatic patients at average risk for CRC development, the mechanisms of these screening tests are distinct. gFOBT works by detecting the peroxidase activity of heme whereas FIT selectively detects human hemoglobin. The sensitivity in detecting CRC is higher for the FIT, with sensitivity of 0.79 compared to gFOBT with sensitivity of 0.36, they have similar specificities of 0.94 and 0.96, respectively. Currently, both the gFOBT and FIT are strongly recommended across Canada, with all provinces using the FIT, apart from Ontario and Manitoba which currently use the gFOBT to screen asymptomatic patients for CRC. A newer test, the sDNA test, identifies mutations in DNA that are shed by both adenomatous polyps and CRC cells. The sDNA test is more sensitive (0.92 95% CI 0.83-0.98) than both the gFOBT and FIT, however, is less specific and more expensive. Further data surrounding the sDNA test will be required prior to its implementation and recommendation for population based CRC screening in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.006 |
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".