MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087951048 · doi:10.1093/jnci/djj396

Population-Based Assessment of the Surgical Management of Locally Advanced Colorectal Cancer

2006· article· en· W2087951048 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerProportional hazards modelPopulationCancerEpidemiologyCancer registryLogistic regressionSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines recommend multivisceral resection for patients with locally advanced adherent colorectal cancer because it reduces local recurrence and improves survival. However, this procedure can increase morbidity compared with standard resection and may not be practiced uniformly. We performed a population-based study to examine surgical practice and outcomes among patients with locally advanced adherent colorectal cancer in the United States. METHODS: Patients who were 18 years or older and who had surgical resection for nonmetastatic, locally advanced adherent colorectal cancer from January 1, 1988, through December 31, 2002, were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry. Logistic regression was used to examine patient, tumor, and geographic factors associated with multivisceral resection. Cumulative early mortality (i.e., at 1 and 6 months after diagnosis) and 5-year survival were obtained from Kaplan-Meier estimates; adjusted risks of death were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: We identified 8380 patients who underwent surgical resection for locally advanced adherent colorectal cancer, of whom 33.3% were managed with multivisceral resection. Among colon cancer patients, younger age at diagnosis, female sex, SEER region, node negativity, and left-sided tumors were independently associated with having had a multivisceral resection. Among rectal cancer patients, younger age at diagnosis and female sex were positively and statistically significantly associated with multivisceral resection, whereas receipt of neoadjuvant radiation was inversely and statistically significantly associated with multivisceral resection. Compared with standard resection, multivisceral resection was associated with improved overall survival for patients with colon (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83 to 0.96) and rectal (HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.94) cancer, with no associated increase in early mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with locally advanced colorectal cancer did not receive a multivisceral resection. The geographic variation in the application of this procedure in patients with colon cancer suggests that local organizational structures and processes of care may play an important role in patient treatment and, therefore, prognosis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.336 · 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