MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409140201 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-24-1488

Modeling the Economic and Health Impact of Lowering the Recommended Colorectal Cancer Screening Age in Canada Using Fecal Immunochemical Test versus Colonoscopy

2025· article· en· W4409140201 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brendan J. Chia, Yibing Ruan, Carl J. Brown, Robert J. Hilsden, John M. Hutchinson, Darren R. Brenner, Jonathan M. Loree

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British ColumbiaAlberta Health ServicesProvidence Health CareBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopyMedicineColorectal cancerIncidence (geometry)Colorectal cancer screeningCohortDemographyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The increasing rates of early-onset colorectal cancer in Canada suggest that earlier screening may be warranted. Canadian guidelines recommend biennial screening at 50 years of age with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). METHODS: OncoSim was used to project the outcomes of revised colorectal cancer screening guidelines in Canada for four cohorts born between 1973 and 1992. Cohort risk ratios were calibrated to Canadian incidence data to reflect early-onset trends. We evaluated the incremental colonoscopy burden of earlier FIT screening and primary colonoscopy screening compared with a reference scenario screening with FIT biennially at 50 years of age (FIT 50). Sensitivity analyses were performed by adjusting screening participation and discount rates. RESULTS: FIT at 45 and 40 years of age (FIT 45 and FIT 40, respectively) increased the colonoscopy demand by 3.9% and 6.6%, respectively, over the lifetime of screening. Colonoscopy screening resulted in 89.0% to 116.7% more colonoscopies than FIT 50. Screening and total costs increased in all scenarios, but treatment costs decreased. FIT 45 and FIT 40 reduced the incidence by 103 and 161 and colorectal cancer deaths by 43 and 71 per 100,000, respectively. Colonoscopy screening led to 858 to 954 fewer cases and 260 to 303 fewer deaths per 100,000, resp. FIT 45and FIT 40 had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $5,850 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $7,038 per QALY, respectively, compared with FIT 50. Colonoscopy scenarios had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $2,743 to $7,509 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Updated screening can reduce the colorectal cancer burden in younger populations. Increasing FIT screening with earlier initiation is more feasible logistically than increasing colonoscopy first approaches. IMPACT: These findings may inform future guideline revisions in Canada addressing early-onset colorectal cancer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207