MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Changes in mammography screening in Ontario and Alberta following national guideline dissemination: an interrupted time series analysis

2021· preprint· en· W3205025659 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christine Fahim, Natasha Wiebe, Rosane Nisenbaum, Jemila S. Hamid, Joycelyne Ewusie, Marcello Tonelli, Paula Brauer, Elizabeth Shaw, Neil R. Bell, Dawn Stacey, Nathalie M. Holmes, Sharon E. Straus

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaOttawa HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of OttawaUniversity of GuelphSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoUniversity of AlbertaSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineTask forceMammography screeningMammographyFamily medicinePreventive careBreast cancer screeningBreast cancerOpen peer reviewScreening mammographyHealth careGerontologyPlant biologyCancerInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In November 2011, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care released guidelines for screening women at average breast cancer risk. Weak recommendations (framed using GRADE methodology) were made for screening women aged 50 to 74 years every two to three years, and for not screening women aged 40 to 49 years. Methods: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis using administrative data to examine bilateral mammography use before and after a national guideline dissemination strategy targeting primary care physicians. Women aged 40 to 74 years living in Ontario or Alberta from 30 th November 2008 to 30 th November 2014 were included. Strata included age, region of residence, neighbourhood income quintile, immigration status, and education level. Results: In both provinces, mammography use rates were lower in the post-intervention period (527 vs. 556 and 428 vs. 465/1000 participant-months - the monthly screening rate/1000 - in Ontario and Alberta, respectively). In Ontario, mammography trends decreased following guideline release to align with recommendations for women aged 40 to 74 (decrease of 2.21/1000 women, SE 0.26/1000, p<0.0001). In Alberta, mammography trends decreased for women aged 40 to 49 years (3/1000 women, SE 0.32, p<0.001) and 50 to 69 (2.9/1000 women, SE 0.79, p<0.001), but did not change for women aged 70 to 74 (0.7/1000 women, SE 1.23, p=0.553). In both provinces, trends in mammography use rates were sustained for up to three years after guideline release. Conclusions: The guideline dissemination strategy appeared to increase uptake of guideline-concordant screening practice in women aged 40 to 49 years in Ontario and Alberta and for women aged 50 to 74 years in Ontario. Further work is required to understand these findings and whether shared decision making about mammography between women and providers increased among women considering 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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207