Examining screening mammography participation among women aged 40 to 74.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine participation in screening mammography among women aged 40 to 74 and identify which factors are associated with those women who participate in screening. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the cross-sectional 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A population-based national sample of 18 312 women aged 40 to 74. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women's participation in screening mammography in the 2 years preceding the 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey; women's preventive health activities (ie, having a regular doctor, a recent physical checkup, and a Papanicolaou test), which were adjusted for sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: Participation in recent screening mammography was highest among women aged 60 to 69 (70.3%), followed by those aged 50 to 59 (63.4%) and those aged 70 to 74 (58.4%). Almost one-third (31.4%) of women aged 40 to 49 had had a screening mammogram in the past 2 years. Having a regular doctor (odds ratio [OR] = 3.30, 95% CI 2.90 to 3.73), a physical checkup in the past year (OR = 3.06, 95% CI 2.30 to 4.08), or a Pap test in the past 3 years (OR = 3.47, 95% CI 3.18 to 3.79) more than tripled the odds that women had had a recent screening mammogram. CONCLUSION: Aside from age being a factor associated with women's participation in screening mammography, factors related to women's health care use (having a regular doctor, a recent physical checkup, and a recent Pap test) demonstrated a stronger association with women aged 40 to 74 having had recent mammograms. The association between women's participation in screening and their preventive health activities implies that the doctor's office is an appropriate venue for conversations regarding the potential benefits and harms of screening mammography.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".