MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4256638088 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.202

A203 SURVEILLANCE OF HIGH-RISK POLYPS IN THE BC COLON SCREENING PROGRAM

2019· article· en· W4256638088 on OpenAlexaff
DE Sanders, L Gondara, R A Enns, David F. Schaeffer, L Gentile, Jennifer J. Telford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopyMedicineAdenomaDysplasiaInternal medicineGastroenterologyHyperplastic PolypPercentileColorectal cancerGeneral surgeryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The BC Colon Screening Program (BCCSP) follows the United States Multi-Society Task Force Guidelines on surveillance of high-risk neoplastic polyps with a repeat colonoscopy at 3 years. To determine whether the type of high-risk polyp (HRP) at index colonoscopy impacted the findings at surveillance colonoscopy. Data on all participants is collected prospectively into the BCCSP database including age, gender, FIT value, colonoscopy findings and pathology. This analysis includes all FIT positive colonoscopies from November 15, 2013 to December 31, 2014. Surveillance colonoscopies were included to September 17, 2018. Initial pathology was categorized by type of adenoma (with high-grade dysplasia (HGD), adenoma with size greater > 10mm, villous adenoma < 10 mm) or by type of serrated lesion (sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P) with dysplasia, traditional serrated adenoma, and SSA/P > 10 mm) and accounted for a combination of a high-risk adenomatous and serrated lesion in the same patient. The initial and surveillance colonoscopy summary statistics were tabulated and the proportions of patients with high risk and interval CRC’s were calculated. There were 17,351 colonoscopies done for FIT positive patients with 3,488 (20.5%) patients having at least one HRP removed. Of the patients with a HRP at index colonoscopy, 2,184 (59.7%) underwent at least one surveillance colonoscopy during the study period. These patients were 56.6% male and had a median age of 63 years (10th, 90th percentile: 53, 72). The median time to surveillance colonoscopy was 37.1 months (10th, 90th percentile: 11.7, 42.9). Thirteen CRCs and 336 HRPs were discovered at surveillance colonoscopy. The proportion of surveillance colonoscopies with either a CRC or HRP ranged from 12% in patients who had an adenoma with HGD on the index colonoscopy to 16.4% in patients who had an adenoma > 10 mm on the index colonoscopy (Table 1). For serrated lesions, 8.3% of patients with a serrated polyp with dysplasia at index colonoscopy had a subsequent CRC or HRP compared to 20.9% of patients who had a SSA/P > 10mm on the index colonoscopy. Of patients with both a high risk serrated and adenomatous polyp, 13/95 (13.7%) had a CRC or HRP at surveillance colonoscopy. Patients with a large adenoma or SSA/P at index colonoscopy appeared to be more likely to have another HRP or CRC at surveillance colonoscopy. Further regression analyses to confirm this possible association are planned. 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 score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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