Use of Fecal Occult Blood Testing in Hospitalized Patients: Results of an Audit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The fecal occult blood test (FOBT), widely used as a colorectal cancer screening tool, continues to be used in hospitalized patients. However, the utility of this test for hospitalized patients is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess FOBT use in a large urban regional health authority. METHODS: Reports of all FOBTs performed between April 1, 2011 and March 30, 2012 from two academic and four community hospitals in Winnipeg (Manitoba) were extracted. Of 650 hospitalizations with a positive FOBT result and 1254 with a negative FOBT result, random samples of 230 and 97 charts, respectively, were reviewed. Information including demographics, admission diagnos(es), indication(s) for ordering the FOBT and clinical management was extracted. RESULTS: Thirty-four percent (650 of 1904) of hospitalizations with an FOBT had a positive FOBT result. Family medicine physicians ordered approximately one-half of the reviewed FOBTs. The most common indication for ordering an FOBT was anemia. Of those with a positive FOBT, 66% did not undergo further gastrointestinal investigations. Of those with a positive FOBT and overt gastrointestinal bleeding and⁄or melena who underwent endoscopy, 60% had their endoscopy performed before the FOBT result being reported while 38% underwent their endoscopy ≥3 days after the stool sample was collected. There were minimal differences in clinical practices between academic and community hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that FOBT results in hospitalized patients may have little beneficial impact on clinical management. Hospital laboratories may be better served in directing resources to other tests.
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".