Predictive values of symptoms in relation to cancer diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/significance: Poorer prognosis for cancer patients in Denmark than in comparable countries has been shown and contributed to the introduction of accelerated diagnostic trajectories for patients suspicious for cancer in 2008. For all types of cancers the National Board of Health developed a manual describing the symptoms that should engender reasonable suspicion of malignancy (“alarm symptoms”) to the general practitioner. Objectives: To investigate the evidence in the literature of the predictive value (PPV) placed on the”alarm symptoms” for colon cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer and lung cancer in a general practice setting. Methods: The literature search was done in PubMed. The quality of each paper was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Results: 14 original studies were identified. Colon cancer: Concerning ”Rectal bleeding” the PPV is high for patients >60 years (6,6%-21,2%), but much lower in younger age groups. ”Change in bowel habits” and ”Significant general symptoms” are more uncertain (3,5%-8,5%). Breast cancer: ”Palpable suspect tumor” is well supported (8,1%-24%). The predictive value of ”Pitting of the skin”, ”Papil-areola eczema/ulceration” and ”Clinically suspect axillary lymph nodes” was not found in the literature. Prostate cancer: One study shows a high PPV for rectal examination (12%). The value of “Lower urinary tract symptoms” is more uncertain (1,0%-3,0%). PPV of ”Perianal pain” and ”Haemospermia” are not described in the literature. Lung cancer: For “Haemoptysis” a high PPV for elderly patients was found (8,4%-20,4%). PPV of “Cough”, ”Pain in the thorax”, ”Dyspnoea” and ”General symptoms” are small (0,4-1,1%).. Conclusion: A few of the “alarm symptoms” show high PPVs. For many symptoms the PPV is not known. To improve diagnostic judgment by GPs and the value of the resource demanding accelerated diagnostic courses more research is needed.
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 | 0.017 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".