MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415027269 · doi:10.1093/bjsopen/zraf096

Risk factors and clinical consequences of interval cancers arising within faecal immunochemical testing-based colorectal cancer screening programme

2025· article· en· W4415027269 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBJS Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
FundersRoyal College of Surgeons of EdinburghChief Scientist OfficeCancer Research UKBowel Cancer UKScottish Government
KeywordsInterval (graph theory)Screening testConfidence intervalStage (stratigraphy)Colorectal cancer screeningColorectal cancerCancerTest (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes aim to detect early, asymptomatic cancers and improve survival. This study aimed to establish the proportion of interval cancers, and the consequences with regard to stage, clinical outcome, and overall survival. Risk factors associated with interval CRCs were investigated. METHODS: The Scottish Bowel Screening Programme uses faecal immunochemical testing at a threshold of 80 µg haemoglobin per g as a positive trigger for investigation. Screening was offered to all eligible individuals in one region, from November 2017 to October 2021. Cancer registries were cross-checked to ensure complete capture of all cancers including interval CRCs. The primary outcome was rate of interval CRCs among participants with follow-up of 24 months, and its relationship to faecal immunochemical testing results, clinical variables, stage, time to diagnosis, and survival. The secondary outcome was identification of risk factors associated with interval CRCs. RESULTS: The Scottish Bowel Screening Programme generated 316 583 tests during the study period. Participation was 71.0% of the eligible population (212 664 patients); it was greater among women (71.9 versus 70.0%; P < 0.001) and in higher socioeconomic areas (76.9 versus 58.6%; P < 0.001). In the screened population, 546 CRCs were diagnosed within 2 years of screening. Some 289 of these patients (52.9%) had positive bowel screening. There were 257 patients with interval CRCs, who waited a median of 13 (interquartile range 7-20) months for diagnosis. Of CRCs diagnosed, 24.9% had screening faecal immunochemical test results of < 10 µg haemoglobin per g. The interval CRC rate was greater in women, older patients, and among the least socioeconomically deprived. Interval CRCs were associated with worse 2-year all-cause mortality than screen-detected CRCs (23.0 versus 10.8%; P < 0.001). Importantly, 121 of the 257 interval CRCs (47.1%) had detectable faecal immunochemical test results at 10-79 µg haemoglobin per g. CONCLUSION: Patients with interval CRCs and a detectable faecal immunochemical test result below the predetermined threshold appear to be significantly disadvantaged with respect to stage at presentation and survival. Almost half of interval CRCs diagnosed within 2 years had detectable haemoglobin on screening faecal immunochemical test and would be a target for lower positivity thresholds.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.387
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