MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Guaiac and Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Tests with Colonoscopy for the Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia

2009· article· en· W2978354075 on OpenAlexaffabout
Clarence Wong, Richard N. Fedorak, Connie Prosser, Daniel Sadowski

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyFecal occult bloodColorectal cancerInternal medicineGastroenterologyAdenomaAsymptomaticProspective cohort studyFamily historyPopulationCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: While screening for colorectal neoplasia using fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) has demonstrated a reduction in colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality, consensus has not been reached as to the best FOBT to use in large scale population screening initiatives. Our aim was to compare the diagnostic performance characteristics of the guaiac-based (G-FOBT) Hemoccult II® (Beckman Coulter) and two fecal immunochemical tests (I-FOBT); the Hemoccult ICT® (Beckman Coulter) and MagStream HemSp® (Fujirebio) relative to colonoscopy. Methods: We used a prospective observational cohort design. 1000 asymptomatic individuals were recruited from the wait lists of 20 urban gastroenterology practices in Edmonton, Canada. Both average risk (50-75 years of age) and moderate risk patients (based on family history of colon cancer or previous history of colonic polyps) were recruited from April 2008 to May 2009. At least 1 month prior to the colonoscopy by expert colonoscopists, all subjects attended an educational session and collected three fecal occult blood tests from the same stool at home on 2 consecutive days. No dietary modifications were required. Laboratory technicians and colonoscopists were blinded to results of colonoscopy and FOBT respectively. Results: 1000 patients have been recruited into the study. Results are presented for the first 751 cases. (53.4% female, mean age 56). With colonoscopy, the adenoma detection rate was 24.7%, the advanced adenoma detection rate was 5.7% and the cancer detection rate was 0.3%. The performance characteristics of the 3 occult blood tests were compared relative to the colonoscopic findings as found in Table 1.Table 1: Sensitivity and specificity of G-FOBT and I-FOBTs for colorectal neoplasiaConclusion: Compared to G-FOBT, the I-FOBT tests were more sensitive for colonic advanced adenomas and cancers with a reasonable trade-off in specificity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→