MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1535050681

Concordance with clinical practice guidelines for adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage I-III colon cancer: experience in 2 Canadian provinces.

2009· article· en· W1535050681 on OpenAlexaffabout
Debrah Wirtzfeld, Lynn Mikula, Robert Gryfe, Pietro Ravani, Elizabeth Dicks, Pat Parfrey, Steve Gallinger, William G. Pollett

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerMicrosatellite instabilityConcordanceOncologyInternal medicineCancerAdjuvant therapyStage (stratigraphy)Disease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer were published by the National Institutes of Health in 1991. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and Cancer Care Ontario have recommended adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer. We evaluated differences in concordance with guidelines in the treatment of patients with stage I-III colon cancer in the Canadian provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario. METHODS: We assessed clinical data and treatment from January 1999 to December 2000 for 130 patients from Newfoundland and Labrador and 315 patients from Ontario who had stage I-III colon cancer. The primary outcome was concordance with guidelines for adjuvant treatment. We evaluated factors affecting the use of chemotherapy in patients with stage II disease. RESULTS: No patients received adjuvant therapy for stage I disease. Forty-five of 52 patients (87%) in Newfoundland and Labrador and 108 of 115 patients (94%) in Ontario received adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer. Twenty of 55 patients (36%) in Newfoundland and Labrador and 44 of 116 patients (38%) in Ontario received adjuvant therapy for stage II disease. Eighteen of 41 patients (44%) in Newfoundland and Labrador and 30 of 53 patients (57%) in Ontario with high-risk features received adjuvant treatment, which was significantly higher than patients without high-risk features. There was a strong trend toward using chemotherapy in patients with stage II disease who were 50 years or younger, independent of high-risk status. CONCLUSION: Concordance with CPGs for adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage II colon cancer was not optimal. This may reflect selection bias among referring surgeons, a paucity of level-I evidence and the belief that other factors such as age may play a role in predicting outcome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.205
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207