MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3134163294 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab002.144

A146 EVALUATION OF A COLONOSCOPY REFERRAL FORM IN QUEBEC: WHICH INDICATIONS CARRIES A HIGHER RISK OF ADVANCED NEOPLASIA?

2021· article· en· W3134163294 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anas Chennouf, Megan Delisle, Myriam Martel, Charles Ménard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopyMedicineReferralColorectal cancerContext (archaeology)HematocheziaGeneral surgeryTriageRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineCancerEmergency medicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Patients referral for colonoscopy in the province of Quebec are organized through a standardized triage sheet that includes all indications categorized in 5 hierarchal scheduling priorities. In the context of a restricted access to colonoscopy, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, postponed elective endoscopies lead to potential diagnostic and therapeutic delays in patients with colorectal neoplasia. There is currently an important need to evaluate available tools to improve patients prioritization. Aims This study aims to determine CRC and advanced adenomas (AA) rates associated with indications of priority 3 (P3 fig.1). The secondary objective is to regroup and compare indications with higher and lower rate of CRC and AA. Methods This retrospective study included all adult patients who underwent a single diagnostic colonoscopy from March 2013 to March 2016 following a single FIT test in a tertiary teaching hospital. A literature review informed the adopted definition of higher-risk of CRC and AA according to P3 colonoscopy indications. These include: Positive FIT test (IN5), hematochezia in ≥ 40 years old patients (IN4), unexplained iron deficiency anemia (IN6) and symptoms suspicious of occult colorectal cancer (IN18). Lower risk P3 indications were defined as: suspicion of IBD (IN3), recent change in bowel habits (IN7), polyp viewed on imaging (IN17), inadequate bowel preparation (IN19), and diverticulitis follow-up (IN20). Higher and lower risk indications findings were analyzed. Results In our cohort of 2226 patients, indications for colonoscopy referral according to the standardized form were available for 1806 patients (10 P1, 69 P2, 1056 P3, 56 P4 and 615 P5). In our studied group of P3 indications, the mean age was 62.6±11.3 years, 54.1% were female and 173 (16.4%) patients had a significant finding of CRC or AA (table 1). Patients referred for higher risk indications had a significantly increased rate of CRC and AA (19.3% vs 5.1% p≤ 0.01) compared to patients referred for lower risk indications. Conclusions A standardized colonoscopy referral tool may be adapted to improve prioritization of patients at risk of advanced neoplasia. These findings are especially relevant in the context of limited access to colonoscopy like during a pandemic. 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→