Adjuvant chemotherapy increased survival in colorectal cancer patients with low recurrence risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ACP Journal Club20 May 2008Adjuvant chemotherapy increased survival in colorectal cancer patients with low recurrence riskRonald L. Koretz, MDRonald L. Koretz, MDOlive View–UCLA Medical Center, Sylmar, California, USA (R.L.K.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-10-200805200-02006 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationQUASAR Collaborative Group. Adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation in patients with colorectal cancer: a randomised study. Lancet. 2007;370:2020-9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18083404Clinical Impact RatingsGastroenterology: Oncology: References1 Figueredo A, Charette ML, Maroun J, Brouwers MC, Zuraw L. Adjuvant therapy for stage II colon cancer: a systematic review from the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-Based Care's Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3395-407. [PMID: 15199087] Google Scholar2 André T, Boni C, Mounedji-Boudiaf L, et al. Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2343-51. [PMID: 15175436] Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Olive View–UCLA Medical Center, Sylmar, California, USA (R.L.K.)This article was published at Annals.org on 6 May 2008. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics 20 May 2008Volume 148, Issue 10Page: JC3-6KeywordsAdjuvant chemotherapyAnal and rectal disordersChemotherapyColorectal cancerPatient advocacyQuality of lifeRectal cancerResearch funding ePublished: 20 May 2008 Issue Published: 20 May 2008 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2008 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".