Cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 over‐expression in sporadic colorectal carcinoma without lymph node involvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cyclo-oxygenase-2 over-expression has been reported in most advanced human colorectal cancers. AIMS: To assess the prevalence of cyclo-oxygenase-2 over-expression in non-advanced colorectal cancers, to investigate the correlation between cyclo-oxygenase-2 status and tumour clinicopathological features and molecular phenotype, and to determine the impact of cyclo-oxygenase-2 status on long-term clinical outcome. METHODS: Sixty-one patients who had undergone surgery for colorectal cancer without lymph node involvement were evaluated retrospectively. Cyclo-oxygenase-2 expression was determined by immunohistochemistry. The tumour replication error phenotype was assessed by amplification of the two microsatellites, BAT-25 and BAT-26. RESULTS: Thirty-six tumours were classified as cyclo-oxygenase-2 positive and 25 as cyclo-oxygenase-2 negative. No correlation was found between cyclo-oxygenase-2 over-expression and clinicopathological features or molecular phenotype. Cyclo-oxygenase-2 over-expression was an independent predictor of a poor prognosis. Indeed, the relative risk of tumour recurrence or death for patients with cyclo-oxygenase-2-positive tumours was 2.13 times that of patients with cyclo-oxygenase-2-negative tumours (P=0.008; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-3.73). This difference remained significant when post-operative deaths were censored in the multivariate analysis (P=0.014). CONCLUSION: Cyclo-oxygenase-2 over-expression is not associated with tumour phenotype, but is indicative of a poorer clinical outcome in patients with non-advanced colorectal carcinoma.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".