MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413055724 · doi:10.1503/cjs.000825

Canadian considerations on updating the age of initiation for colorectal cancer screening in individuals at average risk

2025· review· en· W4413055724 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Samuel L. Skulsky, Eisar Al‐Sukhni, Roselyne Villiard, Ting Li, M. Li, Jerry T. Dang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerIncidence (geometry)Colorectal cancer screeningHealth careGerontologyFamily medicineCancerDemographyColonoscopyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), defined as CRC occurring in individuals younger than 50 years, is increasing globally. Emerging evidence suggests that the incidence and prevalence of CRC in individuals aged 45-49 years approach those in individuals aged 50-59 years. To address this concerning trend, many health care systems and clinical specialist societies are advocating for lowering the age of initiation for CRC screening in individuals at average risk to 45 years. The present review, provided by the Canadian Association of General Surgeons Clinical Practice Committee, gives an overview of the current CRC screening guidelines in Canada, the rationale for earlier screening, and the challenges and impact of lowering the screening age to 45 years to health care systems in Canada.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207