Abstract
The aftermath of the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic may contribute to the widening of disparities in access to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening due to differential disruptions to CRC screening. This comparative microsimulation analysis uses two CISNET CRC models to simulate the impact of ongoing screening disruptions induced by the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term CRC outcomes. We evaluate three channels through which screening was disrupted: delays in screening, regimen switching, and screening discontinuation. The impact of these disruptions on long-term colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes was measured by the number of Life-years lost due to CRC screening disruptions compared to a scenario without any disruptions. While short-term delays in screening of 3-18 months are predicted to result in minor life-years loss, discontinuing screening could result in much more significant reductions in the expected benefits of screening. These results demonstrate that unequal recovery of screening following the pandemic can widen disparities in colorectal cancer outcomes and emphasize the importance of ensuring equitable recovery to screening following the pandemic.
Introduction
The novel SARS-Cov-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in major health consequences across the globe. In addition to the over 1 million COVID-19 deaths in the United States,1 the pandemic has also contributed to steep declines in cancer screening, most notably in the early phases of the pandemic due to government-mandated shutdowns of non-emergency medical services.2 It is estimated that colorectal cancer screening (CRC) decreased by 85% in the United States during the early phase of the pandemic, from March through April 2020.3 The pandemic continues to affect CRC screening and diagnosis through staff shortages that reduce capacity at gastroenterology clinics and patient hesitancy to seek care.4, 5 Despite cancer screening reopening efforts, CRC screening has not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels.6
CRC remains the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, with approximately 151,030 new cases and 52,580 deaths estimated in 2022.7 There is clear evidence that screening has a major impact on reducing the burden of CRC,8, 9 and that it is cost-effective.10, 11 The current United States Preventive Task Force (USPSTF) report recommends multiple screening options, including annual fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) and colonoscopy every ten years for average-risk individuals.12 However, CRC screening uptake was of concern even before the pandemic, with CRC screening rates well below the goal of 70.5% for Healthy People 2020 and the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable goal of 80% by 2018.13 Low rates of CRC screening have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, and delays in screening will result in delays in diagnosis, stage progression, and increased CRC mortality.
The pandemic may also further exacerbate existing disparities related to screening. The burden of unemployment and associated loss of access to healthcare care varies across different racial and ethnic groups.14 Because of this, the pandemic may contribute to widening disparities in cancer outcomes. A recent analysis using National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data postulated that unemployment was adversely associated with being up-to-date with screening, with only 16.7% of unemployed individuals participating in recent CRC screenings, only 48.5% of whom were up-to-date with CRC screening.15
The objective of this study is to estimate the impact of ongoing screening and treatment disruptions induced by the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term CRC outcomes. We examine twenty-five scenarios that reflect different levels of pre-pandemic adherence to colonoscopy and FIT screening to assess how unequal recovery in screening may contribute to widening disparities in CRC lifetime outcomes.
Methods
This paper uses two independently developed microsimulation models of CRC, CRC-SPIN and MISCAN-Colon, to estimate the effects of pandemic-induced disruptions in colonoscopy screening for eight pre-pandemic average-CRC risk population cohorts in the United States. CRC-SPIN and MISCAN-Colon models are part of the National Cancer Institute’s CISNET consortium and describe the natural history of CRC in an unscreened population based on the adenoma-carcinoma sequence. Detailed descriptions of these models and underlying assumptions may be found elsewhere.10, 16, 17, 18 We consider variations on two commonly-used screening strategies in the USPSTF recommendations during the onset of the pandemic in March 202019: Decennial colonoscopy from age 50 to 70 and annual FIT tests from age 50 to 75, with diagnostic colonoscopy after a positive FIT. Supplementary Table 1 presents the operating characteristics assumed for each test. Individuals with adenomas detected at screening enter adenoma surveillance; Supplementary Table 2 describes the frequency of surveillance colonoscopies based on prior test results.
Cohorts
We simulated eight pre-pandemic population cohorts that represent average-risk individuals in the United States, defined by both cohort members’ age in April 2020 and their pre-pandemic screening regimens: i) Unscreened 50-year-olds (U50), ii) Unscreened 60-year-olds (U60), iii) Colonoscopy screening-adherent 60-year-olds (C60, who received their first screening colonoscopy at age 50 but have not yet had a colonoscopy at age 60), iv) FIT screening-adherent 60-year-olds (F60, who performed annual FIT tests from age 50 to 59, v) FIT screening semi-adherent 60-year-olds (f60) – those who received biannual FIT tests from age 50 to 56, vi) Unscreened 70-year-olds (U70), vii) Colonoscopy screening-adherent 70-year-olds (C70, who received screening colonoscopies at age 50 and 60), and viii) FIT screening-adherent 70-year-olds (F70, who performed annual FIT tests from age 50 to 69). We simulated 10 million individuals within each cohort to reduce the stochastic variability in our runs and to ensure sufficient precision in our estimates. For each cohort, we simulated three sets of post-pandemic scenarios: no disruption, delays, and no screening.
Screening Regimens under no Disruption
The No-disruption scenarios simulate post-pandemic screening scenarios for each cohort in the counterfactual scenario where no pandemic-induced screening disruptions occurred. In No Disruption scenarios, all these cohorts would have been screened during the pandemic first lockdowns in March 2020. Cohorts with colonoscopy and FIT adherent individuals (U50, C60, F60 C70, F70) continue to follow guideline-recommended strategies strictly, with no delays. Cohorts with delayed initiation (U60, U70) begin screening late but otherwise follow guideline-recommended strategies with no delays but without any additional screening beyond the usual stopping age. Finally, for the FIT-semi-adherent 60-year-olds (f60), we simulate resumption of biannual FIT tests at age 60, continuing to age 75.
Pandemic-Induced disruptions in CRC Screening
Delays
The pandemic has been shown to affect CRC outcomes through delays in screening. Screening colonoscopy and FIT are assumed to be delayed for a set duration of months starting at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020. Short-term screening delays may have occurred for a series of reasons. Firstly, elective procedures were postponed during the first months of the pandemic. The cancelation of elective procedures caused a sharp decline in CRC screening exams during the initial phase of the pandemic.20 To represent the full spectrum of delays caused by the pandemic – either due to cancellation of elective procedures or disruption in access to health care – we consider three sets of delays: a 3, 9, or 18-month delay in screening, which we label as short-term delays. For each delay scenario, the delay was applied on the first post-March 2020 screening exam and carried forward to any subsequent exams.
Secondly, the pandemic may have caused long-term delays in CRC screening. While the recovery in screening rates among insured individuals was rapid,21 the pandemic also caused a sharp economic recession. The uneven recovery in labor force participation has potential to cause disparities in access to healthcare in the United States due to unemployment and discontinuation of health insurance. To examine these longer-term effects of the pandemic, we consider scenarios where screening is paused for an extended period. For the 50- and 60-year-old cohorts, we simulated scenarios where screening is discontinued until the start age of Medicare enrollment (65 years). For 70-year-olds, we consider a scenario where screening is only resumed at age 75 – 5 years after the pandemic onset.
Screening Regimen Switching
The pandemic may also affect CRC behavior via screening regimen switching – i.e., changing from a colonoscopy screening regimen to one based on FIT tests. There is evidence that during the pandemic some patients switched from colonoscopy to FIT15 to reduce the need for in-person endoscopy procedures. Considering this possibility, we model scenarios where individuals who initially participated in a regimen of screening colonoscopy (C60 and C70) permanently switch from decennial colonoscopy to annual FIT screening as a boundary case. While one might expect pandemic-induced regimen switching to be temporary, permanent switching can serve as a boundary case for our analysis – that is, the effect of short-term regimen switching is expected to be lower than the effect of permanent regimen switching.
Screening Discontinuation
We also simulate scenarios where screening is completely discontinued after the pandemic onset as the most consequential boundary case scenario. While only a small (unknown) proportion of individuals will discontinue screening after the pandemic, this scenario serves as an upper bound for the worst possible disruption in CRC screening following the pandemic.
Scenarios
Each of the scenarios simulated in this study results from the combination of a pre-pandemic population cohort, a no-disruption screening scenario that serves as a counterfactual, and one or more screening disruptions (i.e., switching to FIT screening occurred in tandem with short-term delays). Table 1 lists those combinations and the scenario labels used in this analysis. We code our scenarios as [pre-pandemic screening cohort] | [post pandemic disruptions].
Study Cohorts and Scenarios
Outcomes
The primary measure used to assess the benefit of CRC screening programs is the expected lifetime life-years gained (LYG) from screening. All outcomes in this study correspond to expected value of life-years across the US population with average CRC risk. This study investigates the extent to which benefits from screening are expected to be lost due to pandemic-induced disruptions to CRC screening. Therefore, we calculated the total number of Life-Years (LY) for each cohort and scenario, including the number of LY under no screening (LYNS) and the number of LY under no disruptions (LYND). LYNS is computed by simulating the cohort in the absence of CRC screening and LYND is computed by simulating the same cohort under an ideal screening scenario where no disruptions to screening happened, as defined in Table 1.
The key outcome estimated in this study is the expected number of LY lost (LYL) due to disruptions in screening, defined as LYL = LYND − LY. The hypothetical number of LY gained (LYG) from screening under no disruptions are LYGno disruption = LYND − LYNS. Finally, we compute the percentage of life-years gained or lost due to disruption as % LY Lost = 100 * LYL / LYGno disruption. The first outcome measure (LYL) is an absolute measure of the loss of screening benefit due to pandemic disruptions. The percent LY lost due to disruptions indicates the share of screening benefit lost due to the pandemic. Following previous analyses, we present all outcomes as LY per 1,000 individuals or life days per person. We compute each of those outcomes separately for each model and report the range of outcomes observed across both models.
Results
Loss of life due to screening disruptions was the largest for cohorts with severe disruptions after the pandemic (Figure 1). Aside from not receiving any screening, the worst-case scenario for the 50-year-old cohort is to postpone screening until age 65 when they become Medicare eligible. This cohort (scenario U50 | C@65) is expected to lose 104 to 127 LY per 1,000 individuals, and a 38 to 42 percent loss in LYG compared to a no-disruption scenario where they start screening at age 50 (Supplementary Table 3). Other disruption scenarios are predicted to have minor effects on this cohort. For example, 50-year-olds with colonoscopy screening delayed by 18 months (scenario U50 | C18m) are expected to experience a loss of 6 to 7 LY per 1,000 individuals, and a 2 percent loss in LYG from screening compared to a no-disruption scenario.
Screening Benefits lost due to disruptions by Cohort and Scenario
Notes: Each dot represents the estimated life-years lost per 1,000 individuals or life-days lost from one model under the High Sensitivity Scenario. Results are ordered from highest to lowest reduction in benefit induced by the pandemic. Scenarios that result in less than 2 life-days lost per person are omitted from this figure and presented in Supplementary Figure 1. Supplementary Figures 2 and 3 show results for a “Low” Colonoscopy sensitivity scenario. This figure does not present a counterfactual no-screening scenario for the 50-year-olds.
Similarly, 60-year-olds are expected to incur a substantial reduction in the benefit of screening if screening is discontinued after the pandemic. Those who started screening at age 50 and stopped after the pandemic are expected to lose 106 to 124 or 92 to 111 LY per 1,000 individuals if pursuing a colonoscopy (C60 | U) or a FIT (F60 | U) screening regimen, respectively. Those who were semi-adherent to FIT screening before the pandemic and discontinued screening (f60 | U) lose even more life-years – from 143 to 149 LY per 1,000 individuals, or 58 to 69 percent of the benefit of screening. Similarly, unscreened 60-year-olds who start screening at age 65 (scenario U60 | C@65) are predicted to lose 42 to 45 LY per 1,000 individuals compared to a scenario where they would have begun screening at age 60 -, and a 20 to 22 percent loss in LYG from screening due to this disruption.
Switching the screening regimen from colonoscopy to FIT and short-term delays will cause only a modest reduction in the benefit of screening. For the 60-year-old cohort, switching from colonoscopy to annual FIT after the pandemic with an 18-month delay is expected to result in a loss of 9 to 11 LY per 1000 individuals, a 3 to 4 percent loss relative to a scenario with no change in screening regimen and no delays. Similarly, short-term delays are predicted to cause minimal decreases in the benefits of the screening program. A 3-month delay in colonoscopy screening results in a loss of 0 to 2 LY per 1,000 individuals for the 60-year cohort (scenarios C60 | C3m), whereas a 9- or 18-month delay (C60 | C9m and C60 | C18m) is expected to result in a loss of 0 to 2 or 0 to 3 LY per 1,000 individuals, respectively). The worst-case scenario of a 18-month pause starting in March 2020 (scenario C60 | C18m) resulted in a 0 to 1 percent loss of the benefit of screening.
70-year-olds lose fewer life-years due to screening disruptions but can still be affected by the pandemic as they are at greater risk for CRC than younger age groups. When discontinuing screening after the pandemic, 70-year-olds are expected to lose 38 to 87 or 29 to 33 LY per 1,000 individuals due to the pandemic if pursuing a colonoscopy (C70 | U) or FIT (F70 | U) screening regimen, respectively. Unscreened 70-year-olds who only come back to screening at age 75 (scenario U70 | C@75) are expected to lose 49 to 50 LY per 1,000 individuals, a 39 to 43 percent reduction in LYG relative to a scenario where they would have received colonoscopy screening at age 70.
70-year-olds who were up to date with their screening and experienced short-term delays of up to 18 months can expect minimal loss of LY due to pandemic-induced CRC screening disruptions, even if they switch to FIT tests after the pandemic. Those who transitioned from colonoscopy to FIT screening at age 70 can expect a reduction of 5 to 7 LY per 1,000 individuals even if a return to FIT screening was delayed by 18 months (scenario C70 | F18m). This reduction in benefit represents a 2 to 3 percent reduction in LYG of colonoscopy-only screening.
Low-Sensitivity Scenarios
While colonoscopy sensitivity affects the overall benefit of screening, conditional on colonoscopy sensitivity, the loss of life-years due to pandemic-induced scenarios is similar across sensitivity levels. Supplementary Figures 4 and 5 compare LYG and LYL for high- and low-sensitivity scenarios. High-sensitivity scenarios are expected to yield higher LYG benefits than low-sensitivity scenarios, and the magnitude of this difference is higher for more intensive screening regimens. For 60-year-olds with a prior colonoscopy at age 50 who experience a 18-month delay during the pandemic (scenario C60 | C 18m), the benefit of screening is 240 to 297 LYG per 1,000 individuals under a High colonoscopy sensitivity scenario, whereas it is 217 to 272 under a Low colonoscopy sensitivity scenario (defined in Supplementary Table 1).
Nevertheless, conditional on the sensitivity scenario, the effect of pandemic disruptions on LY lost is expected to be very similar for low-sensitivity scenarios. An 18-month delay in colonoscopy screening is expected to result in a loss of 0 to 3 LY per 1,000 individuals for 60-year-olds assuming high sensitivity, whereas it is expected to result in a loss of 0 to 4 LY per 1,000 individuals assuming low sensitivity.
Discussion
Model-based screening cost-effectiveness analyses present estimates under guideline-concordant scenarios, but there are many reasons why real-world screening will not follow guidelines. Chief amongst them in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic severely disrupted screening. Under those conditions, disparities in health outcomes can arise if disruptions are unevenly distributed in the population.
Our results suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic will have an uneven effect on CRC outcomes depending on whether and how fast screening is resumed after the pandemic onset. Consider three cohorts with the same pre-pandemic screening regimen and behavior: 60-year-olds with a prior colonoscopy at age 50. Cohorts that experience short-term disruptions (e.g., 3-18 months) only experience a small loss of life due to short-term delays – up to 3 LY per 1,000 individuals Those who switch from colonoscopy to FIT screening are projected to experience a greater loss of life – from 9 to 11 to LY per 1,000 individuals). If screening is only resumed at age 65 (e.g., age at Medicare enrollment) or abandoned, the loss of benefits from screening could be 3 to 11 LY per 1,000 individuals (scenario C60 | C@65). Lastly, discontinuing screening after the pandemic is projected to cause a loss of 106 to 124 LY per 1,000 individuals, a decrease of 36 to 51 percent in the benefit of screening (scenario C60 | U). These results imply that the pandemic will become a disparity-widening mechanism if it differentially affects screening access and or behavior across different population groups. These results also show that the pandemic is unlikely to generate any substantial effect on those whose screening is only interrupted momentarily.
These results highlight the potential implications of disruptions to preventative care due to loss of insurance following the pandemic. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey, more dramatic declines in the number employed during the COVID-19 pandemic were seen in Black, Asian American and Hispanic groups.22 Moreover, data from the US Census Household Pulse Survey suggests that Black and Hispanic workers were not only more likely to be unemployed but were also more likely to be without unemployment insurance.23 These results provide important clinical insight on the projected impact of these populations which may guide future policy on the aftereffects of the pandemic. Those who were previously uninsured for long periods of time throughout the pandemic should be prioritized to resume timely CRC screening to mitigate the long-term effects postulated in these simulations.
These results also add to the growing evidence of the implications of delayed CRC care following the COVID-19 pandemic. A microsimulation study based on a Canadian population explored scenarios of differing screening delays and transition periods due to attenuated screening volumes and found that a 6-month delay in primary screening could increase CRC incidence by 2,200 cases and 960 more cancer deaths over a lifetime.24 A microsimulation paper based on a Chilean population illustrated similar results with respect to CRC incidence and mortality due to the screening backlog and strained patient care during the pandemic.25 Our results mirror these conclusions and provide new scenarios which consider the aftereffects of loss of healthcare insurance due to disparities magnified by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Limitations
This analysis presents a series of limitations. First, we do not present population-level estimates of reductions in benefits. While doing so could prove helpful, one would have to estimate how many people will be screened following each scenario we modeled. That would require individual-level data describing the distribution of delays and screening regimen switching in the population after the pandemic, which will not be available for many years. Instead of pursuing a population-level study, we conditioned our estimates on a discrete set of pre-specified disruption scenarios. This approach makes our study feasible but prevents us from making population-level predictions.
Second, the scenarios presented in this analysis represent only a subset of the real-world changes in screening due to the pandemic. Even in the absence of a pandemic, individuals may switch from colonoscopy to FIT, and return to colonoscopy screening. To keep this analysis tractable, we restrict the variations considered in this paper to one switch from colonoscopy to FIT. Further, we only consider changes in screening regimens immediately following the COVID-19 pandemic.
Third, this analysis only considers uncertainty stemming from structural differences between models and two scenarios of test characteristics and does not evaluate parameter or sampling uncertainty. Our estimates represent the expected value of estimates conditional on scenarios across an average-risk cohort drawn from the general US population. Finally, this analysis focuses on the effects of the pandemic on the primary measure of the benefit of CRC screening - life-years gained from screening. We do not present the effects of disruptions on other secondary measures that will likely be affected, such as cancer incidence and screening utilization.
Conclusion
This study quantified the potential effect of a set of disruptions to colonoscopy screening and demonstrated that unequal recovery of CRC screening following the pandemic will predictably widen disparities in CRC outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic will severely reduce the benefits of CRC screening if it causes screening discontinuation or long-term (e.g., 5-year) delays. Short-term delays of 3-18 months and regime switching from colonoscopy to FIT tests are not expected to have significant consequences.
Data Availability
This is a computational study based on two independently developed simulation models. Simulation output data and code used to produce the figures and Supplementary Table 3 in this paper are available at https://github.com/c-rutter/unequal-recovery-covid-19. Full documentation of CISNET models used to produce the results presented in this study can be found at https://cisnet.cancer.gov/colorectal/profiles.html. Interested researchers can contact authors directly for more insight into the CISNET models.
Supplementary Appendix
This supplementary appendix presents details about the computing environment used in the study, supplementary figures, and tables.
Computing Environment
All experiments were run on the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility’s Theta supercomputer, and on Bebop, an HPC cluster managed by the Laboratory Computing Resource Center at Argonne National Laboratory, using the EMEWS workflow framework. Theta is a Cray XC40 with 4,392 compute nodes, each with an Intel KNL 7230 (Xeon Phi), aggregating 11.7 petaflops in total. Each node has 64 compute cores with access to 16 GB of high-bandwidth in-package memory, 192 GB of DDR4 RAM, and 128 GB of SSD. Bebop has 1024 nodes comprised of 672 Intel Broadwell processors with 36 cores per node and 128 GB of RAM and 372 Intel Knights Landing processors with 64 cores per node and 96 GB of RAM.
Estimated loss of life in minor disruption scenarios
Notes: Each dot represents the estimated life-years lost per 1000 individuals or life-days lost from one model. Results are ordered from highest to lowest reduction in benefit induced by the pandemic
Estimated loss of life under low sensitivity assumptions
Notes: Each dot represents the estimated life-years lost per 1000 individuals or life-days lost from one model. Results are ordered from highest to lowest reduction in benefit induced by the pandemic.
Estimated loss of life in minor disruption scenarios and low sensitivity assumptions
Notes: Each dot represents the estimated life-years lost per 1000 individuals or life-days lost from one model. Results are ordered from highest to lowest reduction in benefit induced by the pandemic.
Life-years gained in high- vs. low-sensitivity scenarios
Notes: Each dot represents one scenario considered in this study. The horizontal axis displays the number of Life-years gained (LYG) estimated in that scenario under a high colonoscopy sensitivity scenario. The vertical axis shows the results for the same cohort under a low colonoscopy sensitivity scenario. If Sensitivity did not affect the estimate, then all points would be on top of a 45-degree line. Different colors represent CRCSPIN and MISCAN models.
Life-years lost in high- vs. low-sensitivity scenarios
Notes: Each dot represents one scenario considered in this study. The horizontal axis displays the number of Life-years lost due to disruptions (LYL) estimated in that scenario under a high colonoscopy sensitivity scenario. The vertical axis shows the results for the same cohort under a low colonoscopy sensitivity scenario. If Sensitivity did not affect the estimate, then all points would be on top of a 45-degree line. Different colors represent CRCSPIN and MISCAN models.
Test Characteristics
This appendix specifies sensitivity and specificity assumptions underlying colonoscopy and FIT exams evaluated in this study. Supplementary Table 2 specifies per-lesion sensitivity and specificity assumptions for the two scenarios evaluated in this paper.
Per lesion test sensitivity and specificity
CRC Surveillance
We assume that individuals with an adenoma detected undergo colonoscopic surveillance according to the Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) guidelines. These guidelines provide intervals for surveillance based on baseline findings and findings at the first surveillance colonoscopy. We assume the intervals provided can be more generally expressed as the intervals based on the most recent colonoscopy (“first most recent colonoscopy”) and the colonoscopy prior to that (“second most-recent colonoscopy”). In situations where the MSTF provided a range rather than a single interval, we assumed that the shortest interval would be used in routine practice. The resulting intervals are shown in Supplementary Table 3.
We assume that persons in whom adenoma(s) have been detected remain on surveillance until age 85, provided that no adenomas are detected at the last surveillance colonoscopy. If adenomas are detected, then surveillance continues according to the clinical findings at the last colonoscopy until the person has a colonoscopy with no adenomas detected. For example, if a person has a surveillance colonoscopy at age 83 and no adenomas are detected at this exam or the exam before this one, they would be recommended to have their next surveillance at age 93. Age 93 is after the surveillance stopping age of 85 and the exam prior to age 85 was negative, so they will not have any more surveillance colonoscopies after age 83. However, if the exam at age 83 instead detected 1-2 small adenomas, they would come back for their surveillance colonoscopy at age 90, because adenomas were detected at the exam at age 83. As noted in the section on adherence above, in the primary analyses, we assume persons with adenoma findings are perfectly adherent with the surveillance colonoscopy schedules shown in Supplementary Table 3.
CRC Surveillance Intervals
Lifetime estimates of CRC outcomes
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by grant U01-CA253913 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as part of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET). Additional funding was obtained from the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748 (Zauber). This research used resources of the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported under Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. We would like to thank the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility staff for their timely and critical support. This research was completed with resources provided by the Laboratory Computing Resource Center at Argonne National Laboratory. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
References
