After the Treatment Phase of Colorectal Cancer Care: Survivorship and Follow-Up
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
The number of long-term colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors has increased substantially over the past three decades due to both ongoing advances in early detection and improvements in cancer therapies. Adult survivors of CRC experience chronic health conditions due to normal issues associated with aging, which is further compounded by the long-term adverse effects of having had cancer and anti-cancer therapies. In addition, they are at a higher risk for CRC recurrences, new primary cancers, and other co-morbidities. This article will provide an overview of the clinical care of adult survivors of CRC. Epidemiologic data will be presented followed by a discussion of the approach to the care of long-term adult survivors of CRC, including surveillance of recurrences and new primary cancers, interventions to manage both physical and psychological consequences of cancer and its treatments, and strategies to address concerns related to unemployment and disability. Finally, we will explore the challenges of healthcare delivery, especially with respect to the coordination of follow-up between cancer specialists and primary care physicians, so as to ensure that all of the survivor’s health needs are met promptly and appropriately.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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