MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323351159 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwac036.152

A152 ASSESSING THE USE OF A VALIDATED LYNCH SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE OUTPATIENT SETTING AND SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN PATIENT MANAGEMENT

2023· article· en· W4323351159 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brandon W. Smith, C A Macdonnell, Jordan Yonge, C Galaport, J Telford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerLynch syndromeInternal medicineCancerOutpatient clinicFamily medicineGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer related deaths in Canada. Approximately 1 in 13 males and 1 in 18 females will develop colorectal cancer in their lifetimes. As many as 10% of CRC may be associated with an inherited syndrome. Lynch Syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of inherited CRC, estimated to account for 3-4% of all CRC cases. . A study by Kastrinos et al. found that a simple, 3 item survey, identified 77% of individuals with known LS. Implementation of this questionnaire at a gastroenterology office may help identify patients at risk for LS. Purpose To assess whether implementation of a validated questionnaire to screen for LS is feasible in an outpatient gastroenterology clinic, and if these results would change patient management by gastroenterologists. Method Included in this study were all patients 18 years or older, who had been referred to one of the gastroenterologists at Pacific Gastroenterology Associates in Vancouver, British Columbia. Exclusion criteria included those patients less than 18 years of age, and patients previously seen by the HCP. Each subject was asked the following three questions: (1) Do you have a first-degree relative with CRC or LS-related cancer diagnosed before age 50? (2) Have you had CRC or polyps diagnosed before age 50? (3) Do you have ≥3 relatives with CRC?. Answering yes to any question was considered a positive screen. Gastroenterologists were initially blinded to the content of the questionnaire and results. After completion of the questionnaire and formal gastroenterology consultation, the patients who screened positive for an increased risk of LS had their results unblinded to their primary gastroenterologist. Gastroenterologists were then asked if the survey results changed their management. Result(s) A total of 655 patients were screened, with 33 (5.0%) screening positive for question 1, 71 (10.8%) screening positive for question 2, and 17 (2.6%) screening positive for question 3. In total, 106 (15.9%) of individuals surveyed screened positive indicating higher risk for hereditary colorectal cancer. Subsequent reassessment by gastroenterologists of patients screening positive with the LS questionnaire (n=51) yielded no change to 47 patients (92%), screening with colonoscopy not originally planned for 1 patient (2%), re-consultation for further risk assessment for 2 patients (4%) and 1 referral to the Hereditary Cancer Program (2%). Conclusion(s) Utilization of a simple 3-question survey as part of regular patient intake in a gastroenterology office resulted in an increased number of individuals being identified as being high risk for Lynch syndrome, with a subsequent increase in endoscopic screening not otherwise planned, further assessment for colon cancer risk, and an increased referral to the Hereditary Cancer Program. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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)0.007
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer→French-language works237,207→