MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388822134 · doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2023.101883

Cost-Consequence Analysis of Colon Cancer Screening among Patients with Long-Standing Ulcerative Colitis: 11 Years’ Experience of Saudi Population

2023· article· en· W4388822134 on OpenAlex
Nahla Azzam, Majid A. Almadi, Mansour Altuwaijiri, Othman Alharbi, Abdulrahman Aljebreen, Suliman Alshankiti, Yazed AlRuthia

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSaudi Pharmaceutical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Diseases and Immunity
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
FundersKing Saud University
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyUlcerative colitisDysplasiaPopulationRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineCohortConfidence intervalColorectal cancerSurgeryDiseaseCancerEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Clinical guidelines recommend that patients with long-standing ulcerative colitis (UC) should undergo periodic surveillance colonoscopy. However, the cost and clinical value of performing annual colonoscopy among high-risk patient populations is largely unknown in the Middle East. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the cost and consequence of annual colonoscopy among high-risk UC patients in Saudi Arabia. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on UC patients who had UC for ≥ 8 years or had primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) at any time during their disease,and underwent colonoscopy surveillance between 2010 and 2021 at a university-affiliated tertiary care center. Patients who underwent annual screening were considered adherent, and those who did not were considered non-adherent. The dysplasia detection rate (%) and the costs were expressed in United States Dollars (USD). To generate the 95 % confidence intervals for annual cost and clinical consequence, nonparametric bias-corrected accelerated bootstrapping with 10,000 simulations were conducted. Results: Two-hundred and sixty-one UC patients met the inclusion criteria and were included. Most of the patients 54 % (141 patients), were non-adherent to annual screening, and the patients' mean age and duration of illness were 45 years and 15 years, respectively. The mean annual direct medical costs were USD 10,210.6 for patients who adhered to the annual screening program and USD 6,191.77 for those who did not adhere. The mean rates of dysplasia detection were 1.66 % and 7.09 % for patients who adhered and patients who did not adhere to annual colonoscopy, respectively. The difference in costs and rates of dysplasia detections between those who adhered to the annual screening and those who did not were USD 4,018.88 (95 % CI: 3097.46 - 6,798.06) and -5.43 % (95 % CI: -10.019 - -1.58730), respectively, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 740.125 per 1 % reduction in the rates of dysplasia. According to the bootstrap cost effectiveness distributions, adherence to the annual screening for UC patients would result in higher cost and lower rates of dysplasia development with more than 99 % confidence level. Conclusion: Adherence to annual colonoscopy screening detects more dysplasia in UC patients but with an increased cost. Considering the low rate of progression to colorectal cancer among UC patients, the annual screening might not be cost effective.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.319 · 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