Association between time to colonoscopy after positive fecal testing and colorectal cancer outcomes in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To quantify the associations between time to colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT+) and colorectal cancer (CRC)-related outcomes in the context of a provincial, population-based CRC screening program. Setting Population-based, retrospective cohort study in Alberta, Canada, including Albertans aged 50–74 with at least one FIT+ in 2014–2017. Methods Study outcomes were CRC diagnosis after a FIT+ and a diagnostic follow-up colonoscopy in 2014–2019 and CRC stage at diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the relative risk of any CRC or advanced-stage CRC. Results were presented as crude odds ratio (OR) and adjusted OR (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Of the 787,967 participants who had a FIT, 63,232 (8%) had a FIT+ and met the study's eligibility criteria. The risk of any CRC or advanced-stage CRC stayed high and was relatively consistent for follow-up colonoscopies performed within 1–12 months of the FIT+. After 12 months, the risk of CRC was considerably higher, particularly for advanced-stage CRC. The OR and aOR for any CRC were 1.40 (95% CI: 1.13–1.73; p < 0.05) and 1.20 (95% CI: 0.96–1.49), respectively, and the OR and aOR for advanced-stage CRC were 1.42 (95% CI: 0.98–2.08) and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.59–1.32), respectively, for colonoscopy follow-up within 12–18 months versus 1–2 months. Conclusions For Albertans who used FIT for CRC screening, a longer time interval between a FIT+ and follow-up colonoscopy, particularly over 12 months, increases the risk of having CRC and decreases the effectiveness of CRC screening programs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".