MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404240526 · doi:10.1007/s10620-024-08664-7

Fecal Immunochemical Test Positivity Thresholds: An International Survey of Population-Based Screening Programs

2024· review· en· W4404240526 on OpenAlexaff
Graeme P. Young, Sally C. Benton, Robert S. Bresalier, Han‐Mo Chiu, Evelien Dekker, Callum G. Fraser, Marieke A. M. Frasa, Stephen P Halloran, Michael Hoffmeister, Susan Parry, Kevin Selby, Carlo Senore, Harminder Singh, Erin L. Symonds

Bibliographic record

VenueDigestive Diseases and Sciences · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersFlinders University
KeywordsHepatologyTransplant surgeryFecesTest (biology)MedicinePopulationInternal medicineGastroenterologyEnvironmental healthBiologyMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin (FIT) is now a widely used non-invasive test in population-based organized screening programs for colorectal neoplasia. The positivity thresholds of tests currently in use are based on the fecal hemoglobin concentration (f-Hb), but the rationale for the adopted thresholds are not well documented. To understand current global usage of FIT in screening programs we conducted an international survey of the brands of FIT used, the f-Hb positivity threshold applied and the rationale for the choice. METHODS: All members of the World Endoscopy Organization CRC Screening Committee were invited to complete an eight-element initial electronic survey exploring the key aims. Responses were obtained from 63 individuals, representing 38 specific locations in 28 countries. A follow-up survey on technical issues was offered to the 38 locations, with replies from 17 sites in 13 countries. RESULTS: In-use quantitative FIT were provided by four main manufacturers; Minaris Medical (2 countries), Eiken Chemical Company/Polymedco (21), Alfresa Pharma (2) and Sentinel Diagnostics (4). Of the 38 screening sites, 15 used the threshold of 20 µg hemoglobin/g feces, while thresholds ranged between 8.5 and 120 ug/g in the remainder. Seven explanations were given for adopted FIT thresholds; maximizing the sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia (n = 23) was the most common followed by the availability of colonoscopy resources (n = 18). Predictive value, specificity, and cost effectiveness were less frequently reported as the rationale. Nine sites found it necessary to change the threshold that they had initially selected. CONCLUSIONS: This international survey has documented the wide range of FIT positivity thresholds that are in current use. Quantitative FITs enable programs to achieve the desired program outcomes within available resource constraints by adjusting the positivity threshold. This supports the need for enabling positivity threshold adjustment of emerging new screening tests based on novel predictive biomarkers, rather than providing inflexible test endpoints.

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 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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigestive Diseases and SciencesSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207