Feasibility of opportunistic colorectal cancer screening of hospitalized patients in tertiary care and community hospitals
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Population screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) remains low, requiring alternative approaches for increasing participation. Opportunistic screening of hospitalized patients may aid in increasing uptake rates. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether inpatients can be recruited for opportunistic CRC screening using fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). METHODS: Inpatient charts were prospectively reviewed for study eligibility on admission of patients to the medical wards of 3 hospitals in Winnipeg, Canada. Eligible patients were approached for participation and consent. Inoculated FIT specimen collection tubes were sent to the hospital laboratory for testing. Patients with positive FIT results received a follow-up colonoscopy. RESULTS: In total, 1542 inpatient charts were screened for eligibility; 53 patients were identified for enrollment (51.9% were male; median age, 59 years), of whom 13 patients consented to participate but only 7 provided a stool specimen. One of those 7 patients had a positive FIT result. The overall screening rate was low, at 0.45%. The primary reason for exclusion of patients was age (outside of the range of 50-75 years), followed by patients having recent gastrointestinal bleeding and/or known intestinal diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that it is infeasible to recruit inpatients for opportunistic CRC screening in routine clinical practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it