MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

2848 The Impact of Multitarget Stool DNA (Cologuard) Testing in a Real World Population

2019· article· en· W2979785344 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erica P. Turse, Francis Dailey, Veysel Tahan, John C. Turse

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyInternal medicineColorectal cancerGastroenterologyRectumDysplasiaColorectal cancer screeningPopulationHyperplastic PolypProspective cohort studyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second leading cause of death for carcinomas. Effective screening for CRC is paramount to prevent morbidity and mortality. Several options for screening alternatives exist with the newest, as of 2014, being the recommendation for multitarget stool DNA testing. A cross-sectional study at 90 sites, including private and academic centers, throughout the US and Canada evaluated average-risk patients utilizing stool specimens and follow-up screening colonoscopy. This 2014 study found that sensitivity for stool DNA testing of detecting colorectal cancer was 92.3%, advanced precancerous lesions 42.4%, and high-grade dysplasia 69.2%. METHODS: We collected real-world prospective data from January 31, 2017 through May 31, 2019 of 157 patients who had positive stool DNA testing and documented their colonoscopy findings. The patients all underwent colonoscopy at the same outpatient endoscopy center which has four board certified gastroenterologists, all more than 10 years out of training. Patients were all average-risk prior to receiving stool DNA screening. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 68.8 years, with 99 female patients and 66 male patients. Three patients were found to have invasive adenocarcinoma which included the cecum, sigmoid and rectum. A total of 81 patients had no pathology or hyperplastic polyps and 73 patients had polyps that were either tubular adenomas or sessile serrated adenomas. CONCLUSION: In our study, 48% of patients had a positive predictive value (PPV) indicating those who had stool DNA testing followed by positive initial screening colonoscopies. We compared our data to the initial 2014 clinical trial by Imperiale et al with a 41.37% PPV. Interestingly, the number needed to treat in the clinical trial found that 166 individuals would have to undergo multitarget DNA testing for any colorectal cancer to be found and 31 for advanced precancerous lesions. Our real-world study determined that it took about 52 patients (3 in 157) to identify colorectal cancer and 1 in 2.15 patients for advanced precancerous lesions. Our study highlights the continued necessity of colonoscopies as the first line therapy for screening, even among average risk populations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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