A154 ASSESSING COLON SCREENING PROGRAM COLONOSCOPIES IN A NON-HOSPITAL ENDOSCOPY CLINIC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Colorectal cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in British Columbia, affecting 1 in 6 persons. The BC Colon Screening Program (CSP) screens individuals 50–74 years of age with biennial FIT (cut-off 10 mcg/g) with follow-up colonoscopy for positive results. In Vancouver, colonoscopies are performed in a hospital environment; however non-hospital endoscopy clinics have been used in other jurisdictions. Aims To investigate the quality of procedure, rate of complications and need to repeat procedures in a hospital setting for colonoscopies performed on CSP patients in a non-hospital setting. Methods A retrospective chart review for all CSP colonoscopies performed from 04/19 to 07/19 in a non-hospital endoscopy clinic. Data was collected from an electronic medical record system and included adenoma detection rates; any repeat procedures required in a hospital setting and adverse event rates. Criteria for a repeat in hospital colonoscopy were inadequate bowel preparation, body mass index exceeding the allowable threshold for a non-hospital colonoscopy and identification of a difficult to remove polyp such as a polyp > 20 mm or in a difficult location. Results 801 FIT positive patients (ages 50–74) underwent colonoscopy in the non-hospital endoscopy clinic. The mean age was 60 years (51% female). The mean time between referral date and procedure date was 192 days. The neoplasia detection rate was 60.2%, there was one (0.1%) adverse event (post-polypectomy bleed) and 21 (2.6%) patients required a repeat colonoscopy in a hospital setting. Conclusions Colonoscopy to follow-up a positive FIT in an non-hospital endoscopy clinic was safe and effective with a low number of repeat, in hospital colonoscopies required. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".