MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409684914 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32050243

Predictors of Colon Cancer Screening Among the Saudi Population at Primary Healthcare Settings in Riyadh

2025· article· en· W4409684914 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Amani Alharthy, Mamdouh M. Shubair, Badr F. Al-Khateeb, Lubna Alnaim, Emad Aljohani, Nada Kareem Alenazi, Maha A. Alghamdi, Khadijah Angawi, Rawabi M. Alsayer, Naif M. Alhawiti, Ashraf El‐Metwally

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersKing Fahad Medical City
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionOdds ratioConfidence intervalLogistic regressionPopulationHealth careCross-sectional studyPublic healthColorectal cancerEnvironmental healthFamily medicineDemographyCancerInternal medicineNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(1) Background: This study aims to identify the sociodemographic, behavioural, and systemic predictors of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among primary healthcare attendees in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to inform targeted interventions and policy strategies. (2) Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted between March and July 2023 across 48 randomly selected primary healthcare centers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The target population for this study was adults aged 18 and above attending primary healthcare centers in Riyadh. Multi-stage random sampling was used to recruit participants. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of CRC screening. (3) Results: CRC screening uptake was found to be only 4.2%. Age was a significant predictor, with individuals aged 50-75 years (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50-2.42) and those aged 75 years or older (AOR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.01-1.87) being more likely to undergo screening compared to younger individuals. Insurance coverage strongly influenced screening behaviour (AOR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.37-1.96). Smokers were nearly four times more likely to participate in screening than non-smokers (AOR: 3.87, 95% CI: 3.21-4.69), and physical activity was positively associated with screening (AOR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.11-1.82). (4) Conclusions: CRC screening uptake in Riyadh is critically low, highlighting the need for targeted public health interventions. Key predictors such as age, insurance coverage, smoking, and physical activity underscore the importance of addressing sociodemographic disparities and promoting health awareness. The findings emphasize the need for culturally tailored educational campaigns, improved healthcare access, and enhanced screening programs to increase uptake.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.335 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207