Predicting outcome following colorectal cancer surgery using a colorectal biochemical and haematological outcome model (Colorectal BHOM)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To present a new biochemistry and haematology outcome model which uses a minimum dataset to model outcome following colorectal cancer surgery, a concept previously shown to be feasible with arterial operations. METHOD: Predictive binary logistic regression models (a mortality and morbidity model) were developed for 704 patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery over a 6-year period in one hospital. The variables measured included 30-day mortality and morbidity. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit statistics and frequency tables compared the predicted vs the reported number of deaths. Discrimination was quantified using the c-index. RESULTS: There were 573 elective and 131 nonelective interventional cases. The overall mean predicted risk of death was 7.79% (50 patients). The actual number of reported deaths was also 50 patients (χ(2) = 1.331, df = 4, P-value = 0.856; no evidence of lack of fit). For the mortality model, the predictive c-index was = 0.810. The morbidity model had less discriminative power but there was no evidence of lack of fit (χ(2) = 4.198, df = 4, P-value = 0.380, c-index = 0.697). CONCLUSIONS: The Colorectal Biochemistry and Haematology Outcome mortality model suggests good discrimination (c-index > 0.8) and uses only a minimal number of variables. However, it needs to be tested on independent datasets in different geographical locations.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it