MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415267400 · doi:10.1080/03007995.2025.2573654

Closing the loop in colorectal cancer screening: real-world adherence to follow-up colonoscopy after positive mt-sDNA vs FIT/FOBT, stratified by payer type

2025· article· en· W4415267400 on OpenAlexaff
Mallik Greene, Joseph W. LeMaster, Rajab Idriss, Igor Stukalin, Jorge Zapatier, Jeffrey Arroyo, Joseph C. Anderson, Jordan J. Karlitz

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Medical Research and Opinion · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopyColorectal cancerClosing (real estate)Loop (graph theory)CancerMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction A positive result from a multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, fecal immunochemical test (FIT), or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) requires timely follow-up colonoscopy (FU-CY) to minimize colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and reduce CRC-related mortality. To examine differences in FU-CY adherence between patients who received a positive mt-sDNA test or FIT/FOBT result by payer type.Methods This retrospective analysis utilized a large national claims database linked to the Exact Sciences Laboratories database, which covers over 20 million individuals. Eligible patients were 45-75 years of age and had a positive result between 1/01/2017 and 6/30/2022, with the first test result serving as the index date. Primary outcomes included FU-CY adherence and time to colonoscopy completion.Results A total of 362,646 (mt-sDNA n = 292,300; FIT/FOBT n = 70,346) patients with a positive result were identified during the study period. Overall adherence to FU-CY was significantly (p<.001) higher for the mt-sDNA test cohort (77.1%) compared to the FIT/FOBT cohort (45.1%). By payer type, FU-CY adherence for patients in the mt-sDNA test cohort was highest in those covered by commercial insurance (80.7%) and lowest in those with Medicaid (69.8%); for patients in the FIT/FOBT cohort, commercial insurance coverage (42.3%) was lower than for other payer types (47.4–47.9%). In the regression analysis, FU-CY adherence was significantly (p<.001) higher following screening with mt-sDNA than FIT/FOBT across payer types, sex, and race/ethnicity. Within 180 days, FU-CY rates across payer types were high ranging from 62.7%-74.9% following a positive mt-sDNA test, compared to 36.1%-42.5% observed for FIT/FOBT.Conclusion In this large, comprehensive study combining two national databases, overall, as well as across each payer type, adherence to FU-CY was substantially higher in patients that initially screened with mt-sDNA compared with FIT/FOBT. In addition, FU-CY rates within 180 days were significantly higher in patients that had a positive mt-sDNA test.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.364 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Medical Research and OpinionSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207