A63 REFINING THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF GASTROENTEROLOGY GUIDELINE ON SCREENING IN PERSONS WITH A FAMILY HISTORY OF NONHEREDITARY COLORECTAL CANCER OR ADENOMA: A MODIFIED DELPHI PROCESS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background In 2018, the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) published an extensive systematic review and guideline on screening in persons with a family history (FHx) of nonhereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) and adenoma. While CAG’s recommendations were evidence-based, some recommendations lacked precision (e.g. ranges for some start ages & intervals) and screening cessation age was not addressed, leading to implementation challenges for practitioners and CRC screening programs. Aims To review and update the evidence since the 2018 guideline and to formulate implementable recommendations in the Ontario context that are aligned with the CAG guideline. Methods ColonCancerCheck (Ontario’s organized CRC screening program) conducted a modified version of the literature search used by CAG (Jan 2017 - Sept 2019). A 19-member expert panel with Canadian and international representatives from endoscopy, primary care, epidemiology, organized CRC screening programs, Ontario’s cancer system and the general public refined the recommendations of the CAG guideline for the purposes of implementation in an organized CRC screening program using a modified Delphi process. This iterative process involved a series of webinars and anonymous survey rounds where the panel reviewed evidence materials and provided online feedback to develop, refine & achieve consensus on screening recommendations in persons with a FHx of CRC/adenoma. Consensus was achieved if ≥75% of members agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. Results Six new systematic reviews and 2 new guidelines were identified. New evidence included data on the absolute risk (10 year & lifetime risk) of CRC by type of FHx, as well as the performance of fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and barriers to CRC screening in persons with a FHx of CRC. The expert panel participated in 3 webinars and 4 online surveys to arrive at consensus. Panel recommendations and level of consensus will be reported for the 6 statements (Table). Conclusions Building from the CAG guideline, we derived evidence-based and implementable recommendations for screening persons with a FHx of CRC or adenoma. Funding Agencies Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario)
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 | 0.315 | 0.396 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".