A72 THE ENDOSCOPIC YIELD OF PRIORITIZED INDICATIONS USING A PROVINCIAL-WIDE COLONOSCOPY REFERRAL FORM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The widespread use of a standardized and validated province-wide colonoscopy referral form (PCRF), regrouping mutually exclusive indications into suggested priority wait time categories, has allowed for a more comprehensive assessment of routine colonoscopy practice Aims To validate the Quebec PCRF by better characterizing endoscopic finding yields according to specific clinical indications. Methods This retrospective cohort study includes consecutive adult patients with available data from the PCRF from two tertiary hospitals. The primary outcome was the diagnostic rates of colorectal cancer (CRC). Secondary outcomes assessed incidences of clinically significant lesions (CSL) on endoscopy and confirmed at pathology. These are CRC, advanced adenomas, sessile serrated polyps, polyps ≥ 5mm, colitis, colonic strictures, and miscellaneous other findings excluding hemorrhoids and diverticulosis. Descriptive and inferential statistics, and multivariable regression predictive modeling are reported. Results Overall, 14,657 patients (mean age 59.2 ± 14.0 years, 50.9% female) were included from September 2018 to August 2022. The most frequent indications for colonoscopy were polyp surveillance (IN13, 20.8%), recent change in bowel habits (IN7, 11.9%), a positive fecal immunochemical test (IN5, 8.3%), a family history of CRC or polyps (first-degree relative) (IN8, 6.4%), and suspected active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (IN3, 5.8%). Overall, 40.6% had CSL, including CRCs in 0.8%. CRCs were found more frequently for IN2 (19.7% vs 2.0%, pampersand:003C0.01), IN5 (29.9% vs 8.2%, pampersand:003C0.01), and an unexplained documented iron deficiency anemia (IN6) (11.8% vs 5.2%, pampersand:003C0.01). CSLs were more frequent for IN3 (1.6% vs 5.8%, p=0.04), IN7 (4.7% vs 12.0%, p=0.01), IN8 (0.8% vs 6.5%, p=0.01), IN13 (7.1% vs 20.9%, pampersand:003C0.01), IBD surveillance (IN15, 0.0% vs 4.0%, p=0.02), and surveillance for a significant family history (IN21, 0.0% vs 3.7%, p=0.02). On multivariable analysis, CRC was significantly associated with IN2 OR=31.8 (4.86; 208.7), IN5 OR=19.2 (3.86; 95.7), and IN6 OR=15.7 (2.37; 78.0) - (all are high priority PCRF referrals with a suggested shorter wait time than for most other indications). CSLs were significantly associated with age (OR=1.03 (1.02; 1.03)), IN2 (OR=2.32 (1.35; 3.99)), IN5 (OR=2.37 (1.74; 3.22)), and IN13 (OR= 1.66 (1.36; 2.02)). Conclusions This large cohort study confirms the validity of indications and corresponding prioritization of wait times of a PCRF. Funding Agencies CPAC and MSSS
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".