MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416106131 · doi:10.1515/cclm-2025-0546

Thresholds adjustments and impact on clinical performance of three FIT assays in a colorectal cancer screening program

2025· article· en· W4416106131 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean Y. Dubé, Rosalie Plantefève, Maude Bonin, Luc Galarneau, Jean-Denis Rousseau, François Corbin, Charles Ménard, Artuela Çaku

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColorectal cancer screeningColonoscopyColorectal cancerCancer screeningClinical PracticeMedical screening

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) from various manufacturers yield different results, leading to variable positivity rates and clinical performance. These differences can influence the healthcare costs of a colorectal cancer screening program (CRC-SP), specifically when switching among FIT manufacturers. The analytical and clinical performance of three FITs was investigated to determine adjusted thresholds using positivity rate harmonization. METHODS: A cohort of 6,600 participants from the Quebec CRC-SP received collection kits from three different manufacturers to sample the same fresh stool. Participants with positive results were referred for a colonoscopy which was considered positive if advanced neoplasia (AN) was detected. Positivity rates were determined for each FIT at an unadjusted threshold. Adjusted thresholds were determined using a positivity rate harmonization strategy. Clinical performance was then evaluated for each supplier at unadjusted and adjusted thresholds. RESULTS: Among 5,513 participants who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 327 underwent colonoscopy. The FIT positivity rates at unadjusted thresholds differed between manufacturers. The adjusted thresholds determined to yield the same positivity rate were different for each FIT. A total of 69 participants were diagnosed with AN. Significant differences in concordance, discordance, sensitivity, and specificity were observed when using the unadjusted threshold. After applying adjusted thresholds, differences in clinical performance between manufacturers were no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Threshold adjustment using a positivity rate harmonization strategy render differences in clinical performance statistically nonsignificant and leads to a stable colonoscopy rate between manufacturers. CRC screening programs should determine adjusted thresholds when changing FIT suppliers or when using multiple assays.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207