A synthesis of evidence for cancer-specific screening interventions: A Preventive Medicine Golden Jubilee Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of cancer screening guidelines is to inform health practitioners to practice evidence-based cancer prevention. Cancer screening aims to detect treatable precancerous lesions or early-stage disease to enable actions aimed at decreasing morbidity and mortality. Continuous assessment of the available evidence for or against screening interventions by various organizations often results in conflicting recommendations and create challenges for providers and policymakers. Here we have summarized the current cancer screening recommendations by five leading organizations in North America and Europe: the National Cancer Institute's Physician Data Query (PDQ), the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and the UK National Screening Committee for the National Health Service (UK NSC). All organizations assess evidence based on strength, quality, and quantity, and recommendations are similar although with differences with respect to screening start and stop ages. Recommendations are consistent for colorectal cancer screening with fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test, cervical cancer screening with Pap-test, HPV-test, or co-testing, and breast cancer screening with mammography. However, guidelines vary with respect to age to start and end screening and testing frequency. Tests that have proven to be inefficient or whose use is capable of causing harm are routinely recommended against. Continuous review of screening guidelines is necessary to evaluate the many promising screening tests currently under investigation.
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 | 0.018 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".