Changes in the uptake of screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen in Ontario between 2003 to 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study investigates change in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening uptake in Ontario among men 35 years of age and older, between 2003 and 2012. We identify factors related to PSA testing, and examine the degree to which age guidelines for PSA testing are being followed or if PSA screening is opportunistic in nature. The relationship of income, education and having a regular physician and an estimation of PSA testing prevalence in 2012 is also studied. METHODS: Data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) were used to estimate the proportion of men who had a PSA test in 2003 and then compared to a similar estimate (in similar population) in 2012. We also examined associations with PSA uptake to socio-demographic factors. Contingency table analyses were performed to characterize the changes; logistic regression was also used to evaluate the differences, while taking into account the possible confounding role of other factors. RESULTS: We found among men aged 35-49 years and 75+, there was an increase in PSA utilization between 2003 and 2012. In 2003, 18% of men 35-49 years, and 74% of men aged 75+ reported ever having a PSA test. These figures increased to 20% of men aged 35-49 years, and 84% of men aged 75+ years in 2012. Logistic regression showed that a man in the 70-74 age category in 2012 had the highest likelihood of having had a PSA test compared to men in the age range of 35-49 years (odds ratio (OR)=25.9; confidence interval (CI)= 19.9-33.8). CONCLUSION: In Ontario, PSA testing is seemingly opportunistic in nature and occurring in groups not recommended for testing by the Ontario guidelines. There is a marked increase in PSA utilization in age ranges outside of the current Ontario PSA testing guidelines (35-49 and 75+). It would appear that most PSA testing in Ontario is opportunistic and adherence to age guidelines is limited.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".