MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391655953 · doi:10.1016/j.fmre.2023.12.016

Noteworthy impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening: A systematic review

2024· review· en· W4391655953 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFundamental Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBeijing Nova ProgramPeking Union Medical CollegePeking Union Medical College Hospital
KeywordsMedicinePandemicCancerCervical cancerLung cancerRate ratioMeta-analysisCancer screeningIncidence (geometry)Breast cancerCohortCohort studyInternal medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseConfidence intervalInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sudden onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in January 2020 has affected essential global health services. Cancer-screening services that can reduce cancer mortality are strongly affected. However, the specific role of COVID-19 in cancer screening is not fully understood. This study aimed to assess the efficiency of global cancer screening programs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and to promote potential cancer-screening strategies for the next pandemic. Electronic searches in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, and manual searches were performed between January 1, 2020 and March 1, 2023. Cohort studies that reported the number of participants who underwent cancer screening before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Differences in cancer-screening rates were estimated using the incidence rate ratio (IRR). Fifty-five cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. The screening rates of colorectal cancer using invasive screening methods (Pooled IRR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.65, p<0.01), cervical cancer (Pooled IRR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.67, p<0.01), breast cancer (Pooled IRR=0.57, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.66, p<0.01) and prostate cancer (Pooled IRR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.90, p<0.01) during the COVID-19 pandemic were significantly lower than those before the COVID-19 pandemic. The screening rates of lung cancer (Pooled IRR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.03, p=0.08) and colorectal cancer using noninvasive screening methods (Pooled IRR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.09, p=0.13) were reduced with no statistical differences. The subgroup analyses revealed that the reduction in cancer-screening rates varied across economies. Our results suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a noteworthy impact on colorectal, cervical, breast, and prostate cancer screening. Developing innovative cancer-screening technologies is important to promote the efficiency of cancer-screening services in the post-COVID-19 era and prepare for the next pandemic.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.641
GPT teacher head0.661
Teacher spread0.020 · 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