Guidelines 2000 for Colon and Rectal Cancer Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oncologic resection techniques affect outcome for colon cancer and rectal cancer, but standardized guidelines have not been adopted. The National Cancer Institute sponsored a panel of experts to systematically review current literature and to draft guidelines that provide uniform definitions, principles, and practices. METHODS: Methods were similar to those described by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in developing practice guidelines. Experts representing oncology and surgery met to review current literature on oncologic resection techniques for level of evidence (I-V, where I is the best evidence and V is the least compelling) and grade of recommendation (A-D, where A is based on the best evidence and D is based on the weakest evidence). Initial guidelines were drafted, reviewed, and accepted by consensus. RESULTS: For the following seven factors, the level of evidence was II, III, or IV, and the findings were generally consistent (grade B): anatomic definition of colon versus rectum, tumor-node-metastasis staging, radial margins, adjuvant R0 stage, inadvertent rectal perforation, distal and proximal rectal margins, and en bloc resection of adherent tumors. For another seven factors, the level of evidence was II, III, or IV, but findings were inconsistent (grade C): laparoscopic colectomy; colon lymphadenectomy; level of proximal vessel ligation, mesorectal excision, and extended lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (all three for rectal cancer); no-touch technique; and bowel washout. For the other four factors, there was little or no systematic empirical evidence (grade D): abdominal exploration, oophorectomy, extent of colon resection, and total length of rectum resected. CONCLUSIONS: The panel reports surgical guidelines and definitions based on the best available evidence. The availability of more standardized information in the future should allow for more grade A recommendations.
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 | 0.014 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.022 |
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".