Long-Term Survival in Young Adults With Colorectal Cancer: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study compares the long-term survival of young adults with colorectal cancer who lived a minimum of 5 years after diagnosis with a cancer-free control population. METHODS: A population-based study was conducted using cancer registry and administrative data. Persons aged 20 to 44 years in whom colorectal cancer was diagnosed between 1992 and 1999 and who lived at least 5 years after diagnosis were identified using the Ontario Cancer Registry. Patients with colorectal cancer were matched 1:5 to randomly selected controls (who were cancer free at the corresponding date of diagnosis) by use of the Registered Persons Database of Ontario based on age, sex, and geographic location. Time-to-death was compared between patients with colorectal cancer and controls by use of Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazard regression. RESULTS: Nine hundred seventeen young adults with colorectal cancer who lived at least 5 years after diagnosis and 4585 controls were identified. The median follow-up after achieving 5-year survivor status was 6.2 years; 9.5% (87) of patients with colorectal cancer died compared with 1.2% (56) of controls (P < .0001). 62.1% of deaths In the colorectal cancer patient population were attributed to malignant disease. Colorectal cancer patients were significantly more likely to die over time than controls (hazard ratio, 8.2; 95% CI (5.8, 11.6)). Those patients with no evidence of disease recurrence within the first 5 years after diagnosis also remained at an increased risk of death (hazard ratio, 2.0, 95% CI (1.2, 3.6)). CONCLUSIONS: Young adult 5-year survivors of colorectal cancer remain at a higher risk of long-term death than age-matched controls.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".