Characteristics of Colorectal Cancer that Produce Positive Immunochemical Occult Blood Test Results on Stool Obtained by Digital Rectal Examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To clarify the clinicopathological features of colorectal cancer that show positive results on an immunochemical fecal occult blood test of stool obtained by digital rectal examination. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 9952 subjects received both an immunochemical fecal occult blood test of stool obtained by digital rectal examination and colonoscopy annually over a nine-year period of medical checkups; 64 patients with colorectal cancer were identified. The study subjects comprised 39 patients with colorectal cancer who had positive results (positive group) and 25 patients with colorectal cancer who had negative results (negative group) on an immunochemical fecal occult blood test of stool obtained by digital rectal examination. The positive and negative groups were compared in terms of their individual factors, such as site, size, Dukes classification and histological type of the cancer lesions. RESULTS: The prevalence of rectal cancers was higher in the positive group than in the negative group (P<0.05), but there were no differences between the two groups with respect to any other factors. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that stool obtained during the digital rectal examination is unsuitable for detecting fecal occult blood, especially for the detection of proximal colon neoplasms.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".