MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A New Prognostic Staging System for Rectal Cancer

2004· article· en· W2083564498 on OpenAlexaff
Hideki Ueno, Ashley B. Price, Kay H. Wilkinson, Jeremy R. Jass, Hidetaka Mochizuki, Ian Talbot

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTumor buddingGrading (engineering)CohortBuddingOncologyColorectal cancerInternal medicineMultivariate analysisProportional hazards modelPrognostic variableOverall survivalCancerMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objective: To clarify the appropriateness of tumor “budding,” a quantifiable histologic variable, as 1 parameter in the construction of a new prognostic grading system for rectal cancer. Summary Background Data: Patient division according to an accurate prognostic prediction could enhance the effectiveness of postoperative adjuvant therapy and follow-up. Patients and Methods: Tumor budding was defined as an isolated cancer cell or a cluster composed of fewer than 5 cells in the invasive frontal region, and was divided into 2 grades based on its number within a microscopic field of ×250. We analyzed 2 discrete cohorts comprising 638 and 476 patients undergoing potentially curative surgery. Results: In the first cohort, high-grade budding (10 or more foci in a field) was observed in 30% of patients and was significantly associated with a lower 5-year survival rate (41%) than low-grade budding (84%). Similarly, in the second cohort, the 5-year survival rate was 43% in high-grade budding patients and 83% in low-grade budding patients. In both cohorts, multivariate analyses verified budding to be an independent prognosticator, together with nodal involvement and extramural spread. These 3 variables were given weighted scores, and the score range was divided to provide 5 prognostic groups (97%; 86%; 61%; 39%; 17% 5-year survival). The model was tested on the second cohort, and similar prognostic results were obtained. Conclusions: We propose that because of its relevance to prognosis and its reproducibility, budding is an excellent parameter for use in a grading system to provide a confident prediction of clinical outcome. Based on 2 discrete cohorts of rectal cancer patients, tumor “budding” was identified as a reproducible independent prognostic indicator that can improve the erroneous staging of advanced disease as early-stage disease. A grading system using the 3 parameters (tumor depth, nodal involvement, and budding) provided a wider spectrum of 5-year survival rates (18–98%).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.264
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.129 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations158
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of SurgerySame topicColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207