MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7084053927 · doi:10.1016/j.bpg.2025.102052

Elements of screening and early diagnosis of lower GI neoplastic lesions – an overview

2025· article· en· W7084053927 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBest Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthColorectal cancerTest (biology)Cancer screeningColorectal cancer screeningIntervention (counseling)DiseaseScreening test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dobrow's 12 consolidated principles were applied to evaluate the extent to which colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes align with these established screening principles. The principles within the first domain - disease and conditions - are fully met. CRC represents a significant global public health burden with a well-understood natural history, including a long preclinical phase. These features make CRC suitable for population-based screening. Current guidelines recommend screening average-risk individuals, with starting ages as early as 45 years and stopping ages up to 85 years in some programs, although most programs target those aged 50-75 years. For Dobrow's second domain - test or intervention - we found that established CRC screening methods (faecal immunochemical testing (FIT), colonoscopy, and flexible sigmoidoscopy) have known and acceptable sensitivity and specificity. These tests have clear thresholds for interpretation and follow-up and are associated with reductions in both CRC incidence and mortality, confirming their clinical effectiveness in organised programmes. Dobrow's third domain - programme or system - addresses how screening programmes should be structured, implemented, and integrated into health systems. Unlike the other domains, this is fully achieved in only a small minority of programmes. While implementation may vary from country to country, the principles provide benchmarks for well-organised programmes. CRC screening is generally cost-effective and widely accepted by patients, providers, and society. Successful programmes require dedicated teams, infrastructure, and systems for coordination and quality assurance. Before implementation, a CRC screening initiative must meet, or have a clear plan to meet 12 principles. In summary, robust infrastructure and governance are essential for organised CRC screening programmes to align with the Dobrow principles and achieve long-term success.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueBest Practice & Research Clinical GastroenterologySame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207