Canadian cancer screening disparities: A recent historical perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across Canada, introduction of the Pap test for cervical cancer screening, followed by mammography for breast cancer screening and, more recently, the fecal occult blood test for colorectal cancer screening, has contributed to a reduction in cancer mortality. However, another contribution of screening has been disparities in cancer mortality between certain populations. Here, we explore the disparities associated with breast and cervical cancer screening and preliminary data concerning disparities in colorectal cancer screening. Although some disparities in screening utilization have been successfully reduced over time (for example, mammography and Pap test screening in rural and remote populations), screening utilization data for other populations (for example, low-income groups) clearly indicate that disparities have existed and continue to exist across Canada. Organized screening programs in Canada have been able to successfully engage 80% of women for regular cervical cancer screening and 70% of women for regular mammography screening, but of the women who remain to be reached or engaged in regular screening, those with the least resources, those who are the most isolated, and those who are least culturally integrated into Canadian society as a whole are overrepresented. Population differences are also observed for utilization of colorectal cancer screening services. The research literature on interventions to promote screening utilization provides some evidence about what can be done to increase participation in organized screening by vulnerable populations. Adaption and adoption of evidence-based screening promotion interventions can increase the utilization of available screening services by populations that have experienced the greatest burden of disease with the least access to screening services.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".