Low Incidence of Aerodigestive Cancers in Patients With Negative Results From Colonoscopies, Regardless of Findings From Multitarget Stool DNA Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: We aimed to compare the incidence of aerodigestive cancers in persons with negative results from colonoscopies and positive vs negative results from multitarget stool DNA tests for colorectal cancer and vs expected incidence. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1216 subjects with comprehensive patient records and/or cancer registry data from 3 medical centers in North America. Subjects had no neoplasia or only nonadvanced adenomas, based on screening colonoscopy, and either negative results (concordant with colonoscopy, n = 1011) or positive results (discordant colonoscopy, n = 205) from the multitarget stool DNA test. Outcomes included aerodigestive cancers in discordant vs concordant groups and comparison of observed aerodigestive cancer incidence between the groups and compared with expected incidence for the population, based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data. RESULTS: Median follow-up times were comparable between subjects in the discordant (5.3 y; interquartile range, 3.5-5.8 y) and concordant (5.4 y; interquartile range, 3.7-5.8 y) groups. Aerodigestive cancers developed in 5 subjects in the discordant group vs 11 subjects in the concordant group (crude risk ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.8-6.6; adjusted risk ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.8-6.2; P = .151). The incidence of aerodigestive cancer was lower in the concordant group than the expected incidence based on SEER data (risk ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.6; P = .0008). The incidence of aerodigestive cancer was not significantly greater in the population in the discordant group than the expected incidence based on SEER data (risk ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-1.9; P = .599). CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective study with a median follow-up time of 5.4 years, incident aerodigestive cancers were uncommon among subjects with negative findings from colonoscopies, regardless of discordant or concordant results from multitarget stool DNA tests. Patients with negative results from high-quality colonoscopies therefore should not undergo further testing.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".