Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organ preservation with maintenance of function in the treatment of rectal cancer is highly valued by patients. Although most patients with resectable rectal cancer can undergo a sphincter-sparing radical procedure, there are patient, tumor, surgeon, and treatment factors that influence the ability to restore intestinal continuity after radical resection. Although population-based data suggest that the rate of sphincter preservation is lower than could be obtained at expert centers, there are patients in whom low anterior resection with colo-anal anastomosis is not technically feasible and/or oncologically sound. Additionally, resection with ultralow anastomosis results in functional compromise in many patients. Local treatment of rectal cancer aims to decrease the morbidity and the functional sequelae associated with radical resection; however, local excision is associated with a higher rate of local recurrence than is radical resection. Strict selection criteria are essential when considering local excision, and patients should be informed of the risk of local recurrence. The use of adjuvant therapy with local excision, particularly in patients with T2 lesions, has promise but should be considered only as part of a clinical trial.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".