MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323353355 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwac036.157

A157 FIT-POSITIVE COLONOSCOPY FINDINGS IN NOVA SCOTIA STRATIFIED BY SEX, RACE, AND REGIONAL POPULATION DENSITY

2023· article· en· W4323353355 on OpenAlexaffabout
Randii Lynn Sullivan, J. B. Jones, Chadwick Williams, E Kilfoil, Donald MacIntosh, M Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopyMedicineDemographyPopulationColorectal cancerSocioeconomic statusEthnic groupCancerGerontologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs aim to minimize disparities in CRC rates through universal access. However, Canadian CRC mortality rates remain inversely associated with socioeconomic status and rural residence. In the United States some racialized groups have higher rates of advanced adenomas and CRC. Little is known about pre-cancerous findings or CRC mortality amongst racialized groups in Canada because race and ethnicity data are not routinely collected. Purpose To determine whether FIT-positive colonoscopy incident adenomas and CRC differ on the basis of sex, race, and regional population density in a provincial CRC screening program. Method In this retrospective cohort study drawn from the Nova Scotia Colon Cancer Prevention Program database, we identified adults who had a positive FIT from 2011 to 2021. This report describes incident adenomas and CRC, stratified by sex, race (white vs. racialized groups), and regional population density (urban vs. rural). Racialized groups included those who self-identified as Black/African Canadian, Asian, Middle Eastern and Indigenous. Urban was defined as population centers with more than 5000 individuals. Colonoscopy findings were categorized as no findings, low-risk adenoma (LRA), high-risk adenoma (HRA), or CRC. Comparison between categorical variables was performed with a chi-square test and a t-test for continuous variables. P-value <0.05 was considered significant. Result(s) 41,209 adults (mean age 63.9) had a positive FIT and 34,636 went on to have a colonoscopy offered by the screening program. The FIT-positive colonoscopy participation rate was 84%. Of the 16% overall with a positive FIT but no screening program colonoscopy, 83% had a program consultation but did not proceed with endoscopy for unspecified reasons, 9% declined, and 8.2% are unknown. The overall rate of CRC was 2.4% (n=825) and the adenoma-detection rate was 60.4% (n=20,932). CRC (mean age 65.4) and HRA (mean age 64.6) were associated with older age (p <0.01). Males were more likely to have HRA (38.4% of males) or LRA (26.6% of males) identified compared to females, and females were more likely to have no colonoscopy findings (47.8% of females). CRC was more likely to be identified in urban (2.8%) than rural sub-populations (2.0%). No difference in adenomas or CRC incident rates were noted between white and racialized sub-groups. Image Conclusion(s) This analysis of a provincial CRC screening program suggests that males and urban sub-populations had more high-risk findings during FIT-positive colonoscopies. In the first reported Canadian data, incident rates of adenomas and CRC were similar in white and racialized sub-groups. 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.257
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 topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→