Colorectal cancer screening for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer or adenomas.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review and summarize the recently developed Canadian Association of Gastroenterology screening recommendations for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenoma from a family medicine perspective. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Known hereditary syndromes were excluded. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to establish certainty in reviewed evidence. Most recommendations are conditional recommendations with very low-quality evidence. MAIN MESSAGE: Individuals who have 1 first-degree relative (FDR) with CRC or an advanced adenoma diagnosed at any age are recommended to undergo colonoscopy every 5 to 10 years starting at age 40 to 50 years or 10 years younger than the age at diagnosis of the FDR, although fecal immunochemical testing at an interval of every 1 to 2 years can be used. Individuals with FDRs with non-advanced adenomas or a history of CRC in second-degree relatives should be screened according to average-risk guidelines. Lifestyle modification can statistically significantly decrease risk of CRC and should be considered in all patients. CONCLUSION: These guidelines acknowledge the many factors that can increase an individual's risk of developing CRC and allow for judgment to be employed depending on the clinical scenario. Lifestyle advice already given to patients for weight, blood pressure, and heart disease management will reduce the risk of CRC if implemented, and this combined with more targeted screening for higher-risk individuals will hopefully be successful in decreasing CRC mortality 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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".