Evaluating colonoscopy screening intervals in patients with Lynch syndrome from a large Canadian registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) screening guidelines originally recommended colonoscopy every 1 to 2 years, beginning between the ages of 20 and 25 years. Recent studies have questioned the benefits of these short screening intervals in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC). Our goal is to determine how colonoscopy screening intervals impact CRC in patients with LS. METHODS: We analyzed the demographics, screening practices, and outcomes of patients with LS identified through the clinic based Familial Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry at the Zane Cohen Centre, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada. RESULTS: A total of 429 patients with LS were identified with median follow-up of 9.2 years; 44 developed CRC. We found a positive trend between shorter screening intervals and the number of adenomas detected during colonoscopy. Any new adenoma detected at screening decreased 10-year CRC incidence by 11.3%. For MLH1 carriers, a screening interval of 1-2 years vs 2-3 years led to a 20-year cumulative CRC risk reduction of 28% and 14% in females and males, respectively. For MSH2 carriers, this risk reduction was 29% and 17%, respectively, and for male MSH6 carriers 18%. Individuals without any adenomas detected (53.4% of LS carriers) had an increased 20-year CRC risk of 25.7% and 57.2% for women and men, respectively, compared with those diagnosed with adenomas at screening. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended colonoscopy screening interval of 1-2 years is efficient at detecting adenomas and reducing CRC risk. The observation that 53.4% of LS patients never had an adenoma warrants further investigation about a possible adenoma-free pathway.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".