Colorectal Cancer Mortality after Colonoscopy: A Population-based Study: 2010 ACG Colorectal Cancer Prevention Abstract Award
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: There are limited data on mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC), after a colonoscopy. The objective of our study was to determine if there is a reduction in CRC mortality after colonoscopy in Manitoba, compared to the CRC mortality among the general population in Manitoba. Methods: We identified all individuals with a colonoscopy as their first lower gastrointestinal endoscopy between April 1, 1987 and September 30, 2007 from Manitoba's provincial physicians' billing claims database and followed them to March 31, 2008, death or out-migration from the province. Individuals less than 50 or greater than 80 years old at the index colonoscopy or with prior resective colorectal surgery or CRC or IBD were excluded. CRC mortality, after the index colonoscopy was compared to that in the general population by standardized mortality ratios (SMRs). Stratified analyses were performed to determine CRC mortality for different age groups at index colonoscopy, sex, duration of follow-up and site of CRC. Results: 54,803 individuals (24,342 men; 30,461 women) were followed-up for 310,718 person-years. There was a 29% reduction in overall CRC mortality [SMR 0.71;95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.82], a 47% reduction in mortality from distal CRC (SMR 0.53;95% CI: 0.42-0.67) and no reduction in mortality from proximal CRC (SMR 0.94;95%CI: 0.77-1.17). The reduction in mortality from distal CRC remained significant for follow-up beyond 10 years. Conclusion: Colonoscopy in usual clinical practice can lead to a significant reduction in CRC mortality, but the benefit is not uniform for CRC occurring at different sites in the colon.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".