Relationship between the Number of Positive Fecal Occult Blood Tests and the Diagnostic Yield of Colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2007, Ontario launched a colon cancer screening program for average-risk individuals based on biennial fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) on three fecal samples, followed by colonoscopy for individuals who tested positive. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether >1 positive screening FOBT was predictive of finding advanced neoplasia at colonoscopy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of outpatient colonoscopic procedures performed at Hotel Dieu Hospital (Kingston, Ontario) in the first two years of the colon cancer screening program was conducted, focusing on endoscopic and pathological findings. RESULTS: Of 5556 individuals undergoing colonoscopy, 346 were referred for positive FOBT. Overall, 41 (11.8%) patients with a positive FOBT had colon cancer. In 16 (4.6%) cases, the number of positive FOBTs was not reported. For the 330 individuals in whom the number of positive tests was specified, 198, 71 and 61 cases had one, two and three positive results, respectively. Cancer was found at colonoscopy in 11 (5.6%), 11 (15.5%) and 18 (29.5%) of individuals with one, two and three positive FOBT results, respectively (OR 3.0 [95% CI 1.2 to 7.3] and 6.5 [95% CI 2.8 to 15.0] for two or three positive FOBTs compared with one; P=0.015 and P<0.001, respectively). High-risk adenomas (>1 cm in diameter, villous component and⁄or high-grade dysplasia) were found in 41 (20.8%), 29 (42.0%) and 25 (41.0%) individuals with one, two and three positive FOBTs, respectively (OR 2.8 [95% CI 1.5 to 5.0] and 2.4 [95% CI 1.3 to 4.5] for two or three positive FOBTs compared with one; P=0.001 and P=0.006, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic yield of colonoscopy varied directly with the number of positive FOBTs. This information may be useful in assigning scheduling priority for patients with positive FOBTs.
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".