Normalization of CA19-9 Following Resection for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma is not Tantamount to being Cured?
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) is an independent predictor of survival for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and more powerful than preoperative CA19-9. However, making decisions just dependent on postoperative CA19-9 may result in necessary treatments not being performed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 178 patients with resected PDAC were eligible for this retrospective study, classified into two corresponding subgroups according to postoperative CA19-9. Prognostic significance of all clinicopathologic factors was evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Postoperative CA19-9, preoperative CA125 and lymph node status were independent predictors. Better predictive performances for overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were achieved by postoperative CA19-9 compared to preoperative CA125 and lymph node status. Particularly, preoperative CA125 was associated with poor OS (p<0.001 for the normalized CA19-9 patients, p=0.012 for the elevated) and RFS (p=0.005 for the normalized, p=0.004 for the elevated). Moreover, preoperative CA125 levels related with survival in double- negative patients. CONCLUSIONS: Normalization of CA19-9 is not tantamount to be cured. Preoperative CA125 is a critical predictor for PDAC patients, especially in double-negative patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".