A Survey Assessing the Use of FIT and gFOBT by Physicians Across Newfoundland And Labrador: An Analysis Of Preliminary Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stool testing is currently the preferred method of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), due to the relatively low risk (1). Currently, two main fecal tests are considered: the guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) and the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Majority of the evidence states that FIT has superior performance characteristics compared to the gFOBT. Additionally, research suggests that gFOBT is used within hospital acute care settings as a diagnostic test, despite the lack of evidence supporting the use of stool-based tests outside of CRC screening (2-4). The objective of this research project was to determine the current practices within Newfoundland and Labrador regarding CRC screening and to determine under what context gFOBT and FIT are being used. An online survey was distributed to physicians in NL who are members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association (NLMA). Due to poor response rate, preliminary rudimentary statistical data analysis was completed on the responses. The conclusions are made based on limited responses. All of the family and internal medicine physicians recommend CRC screening within their practice. Additionally, the primary method of CRC screening, unanimously, was FIT and that a majority of the responders agree to discontinue gFOBT. The results showed that stool tests are currently being ordered for reasons other than CRC screening such as GI bleeding, anemia and iron deficiency investigations. The survey responses suggested that the stool testing protocols were being followed appropriately, although there is room for improvement.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".