Venous Invasion in Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Venous invasion (VI) is an independent prognostic indicator in colorectal cancer and may prompt consideration for adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage II tumors. Recent evidence suggests that VI is underreported in colorectal cancer and that detection may be enhanced by an elastin stain. This study aimed (1) to determine the impact of an elastin stain on VI detection and on interobserver agreement between gastrointestinal (GI) and non-GI pathologists, and (2) to identify factors associated with increased VI detection. Forty hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained slides were circulated to 6 GI and 6 non-GI pathologists who independently assessed the VI status as positive, negative, or equivocal. Six weeks later, 40 corresponding Movat-stained slides were recirculated together with the original H&E slides and reassessed for VI status. Detection of VI was >2-fold higher with a Movat stain compared with an H&E stain alone (46.4% vs. 19.6%, P=0.001). GI pathologists detected VI more frequently than non-GI pathologists on both H&E (30.0% vs. 9.2%, P=0.029) and Movat (58.3% vs. 34.6%, P=0.018) stains. There was higher interobserver agreement in the case of a Movat stain, particularly for extramural VI (H&E: κ=0.23 vs. Movat: κ=0.41). A poststudy survey indicated that GI pathologists and non-GI pathologists applied similar diagnostic criteria but that GI pathologists more frequently applied "orphan arteriole" and "protruding tongue" signs as diagnostic clues to VI. This study confirms that VI is underdetected on H&E and highlights the role of elastin staining in improving VI detection and interobserver agreement. Strategies to improve VI detection are warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".