Factors Associated with Colonoscopy Performed in Nonhospital Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is being increasingly performed in facilities outside of hospitals. Regulation of these facilities is variable, and concerns regarding the quality of procedures in nonhospital (NH) settings have been raised. Further study is needed to better understand endoscopic practice in these facilities. OBJECTIVES: To describe NH-based colonoscopy practice in Ontario from 1993 to 2005, and to identify patient (age, sex, income quintile and comorbidity) and physician (specialty and colonoscopy volume) factors associated with this practice. METHODS: The present study was a population-based, cross-sectional analysis using health administrative data from Ontario adults who underwent at least one outpatient colonoscopy between 1993 and 2005. A total of 1,240,781 patients underwent 1,917,714 colonoscopies. The main outcome measure was the receipt of colonoscopy in an NH facility. RESULTS: An increase in NH-based colonoscopy from 10.0% in 1993 to 15.1% in 2005 (P<0.0001) was found. In the multivariate model, younger, healthier men living in higher income areas were significantly more likely to undergo NH-based colonoscopy. Surgeons and other practitioners (eg, nongastroenterologists and noninternists) were significantly more likely to practice in NH settings. Physicians in the highest colonoscopy volume quintile were 25 times more likely to practice in NH settings than those in the lowest volume quintile (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Rates of NH-based colonoscopy are rising in Ontario. High-volume endoscopists and surgeons are most likely to practice in NH settings. Given its increasing use, further study of the practice and the regulation of NH colonoscopy is warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".