This report describes a general agent-based model (ABM) for studying social learning, and uses that general ABM to explore the relationship between micro-influence and macro-dynamics for broad classes of problems.
Each of the diagnostics for colorectal cancer has a different level of evidence supporting its ability to detect cancer and associated risks of serious adverse effects. More research is needed to clarify the evidence base.
There is a statistically significant, but weak to moderate correlation, between radiologists' interpretive performance in screen mammography and their interpretive performance in diagnostic mammography.
Comparison of cancer detection rates and complications of different extended prostate biopsy schemes (greater than 6 cores) proposed for diagnostic evaluation in men scheduled for biopsy to identify the optimal scheme.
Patient surveys provide unique insights for improving cancer care quality and new opportunities for research. However, features of survey populations such as sampling and early mortality should be accounted for when analyzing the findings.
This study systematically reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness, diagnostic accuracy, and harms of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography, and stool tests for colorectal cancer screening.
Patients who visited their primary care provider one or more times were almost twice as likely to be screened for colorectal cancer and about 30 percent more likely receive a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive screening result.
Comparative modeling of colorectal cancer screening methods for previously unscreened adults found that the use of four strategies over different intervals between the ages of 50 and 75 years yielded a comparable balance of benefit and burden.
This large-scale study compares the long-term health outcomes and mortality risks among veteran and non-veteran participants of the Women's Health Initiative, a set of studies that looks for health risk associations in postmenopausal women.
Use of quality of life (QoL) tools in cancer patients may improve patient–physician communication and have the potential to improve care, but the tools are not currently widely used in clinical practice, in brain cancer or other cancer contexts. More research and stakeholder engagement is needed on how QoL tools can achieve the most impact.