MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6922016904 · doi:10.11575/prism/49405

Universal Lynch Syndrome Screening in Newly Diagnosed Colorectal Cancer: Impact of an Alberta-wide Screening Program

2025· other· en· W6922016904 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLynch syndromeGenetic testingGermline mutationGermlineMedical geneticsColorectal cancerCancerOdds ratioHereditary Cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lynch Syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer (CRC) and is thought to be present in 2-5% of new CRC diagnoses. LS is caused by a germline mutation in one of the DNA Mismatch Repair (MMR) genes and can be diagnosed through germline genetic testing. Universal tumor screening in all new CRCs using Immunohistochemistry (IHC) to assess for loss of MMR-protein expression allows for identification of individuals at increased risk for underlying LS who would benefit from genetic testing. This thesis reports the results of one study performed with the aim of evaluating the early-phase impact of Alberta’s province-wide universal LS screening program for all new CRCs on rates of germline genetic testing for LS as well as key clinical outcomes and wait-times in Alberta’s LS screening and diagnostic pathway. Our retrospective review of quality assurance data showed an increase in the number of CRCs screened per month, increased proportion of women and people living outside urban centers being screened for LS, as well as an increased odds of being referred to medical genetics after program implementation. An absolute reduction in mean time from cancer diagnosis to all key clinical touchpoints was seen (not statistically significant). After implementation there was no significant difference in screen positive patients being seen by medical genetics or undergoing genetic testing which is suggestive of additional barriers not addressed by universal tumor screening alone. Together, these findings demonstrate a likely net positive impact from universal screening worthy of continued provincial funding but with a need for prospective data collection and monitoring to identify and address barriers encountered by patients who would benefit from medical genetics consultation, germline genetic testing, and enrollment in high-risk cancer 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→