Colorectal cancer screening in Canada: results of a national survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian guidelines recommend colorectal-cancer (CRC) screening for individuals aged 50 to 74 years. The study objective was to estimate rates of CRC screening according to individual and geographical characteristics, and of adherence to current CRC screening guidelines. Respondents to the 2003 Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.1 (aged >or= 50 years, without past or present CRC) participated. Fecal occult blood test (FOBT) and endoscopy utilization and screening rates were calculated. The sample included 16,747 residents of Newfoundland, Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Overall, the FOBT screening rate was 7.7% in the past year, and the endoscopy screening rate was 8.8% in the past 5 years. FOBT screening rates were higher in older and male respondents; endoscopy screening rates were higher in older respondents. Individuals aged 50 to 59 and over 90 years were least likely to have been screened. Approximately 70% of respondents were non-adherent to current CRC screening guidelines. Non-adherence rates were higher in most health regions of British Columbia. National survey data suggest CRC screening in Canada is low; younger persons and residents of British Columbia were least likely to report CRC screening.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".