Colorectal Cancer Surveillance after Index Colonoscopy: Guidance from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Differences between American (United States [US]) and European guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance may create confusion for the practicing clinician. Under- or overutilization of surveillance colonoscopy can impact patient care. METHODS: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) convened a working group (CAG-WG) to review available guidelines and provide unified guidance to Canadian clinicians regarding appropriate follow-up for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance after index colonoscopy. A literature search was conducted for relevant data that postdated the published guidelines. RESULTS: The CAG-WG chose the 2012 US Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) on Colorectal Cancer to serve as the basis for the Canadian position, primarily because the US approach was the simplest and comprehensively addressed the issue of serrated polyps. Aspects of other guidelines were incorporated where relevant. The CAG-WG recommendations differed from the US MSTF guidelines in three main areas: patients with negative index colonoscopy should be followed-up at 10 years using any of the appropriate screening tests, including colonoscopy, for average-risk individuals; among patients with >10 adenomas, a one-year interval for subsequent colonoscopy is recommended; and for long-term follow-up, patients with low-risk adenomas on both the index and first follow-up procedures can undergo second follow-up colonoscopy at an interval of five to 10 years. DISCUSSION: The CAG-WG adapted the US MSTF guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance to the Canadian health care environment with a few modifications. It is anticipated that the present article will provide unified guidance that will enhance physician acceptance and encourage appropriate utilization of recommended surveillance intervals.
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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".