Challenges in the multidisciplinary management of stage IV colon and rectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colorectal metastases still represent a challenge to all oncologists despite progresses achieved by improved resectability, systemic chemotherapy and targeted therapies. In particular in patients with oligo-metastases, the role of surgical resections has been redefined. Resection is the most effective treatment method for liver metastases performed with curative intent; however, primary rate of resectability is low. Several methods to increase resectability have been developed: conversion chemotherapy, portal vein embolization, two-stage resections, vascular reconstruction of the liver veins, combination of resection and intraoperative ablation. Liver resections can be performed at present with low mortality. Patients with isolated peritoneal metastases, no extra-abdominal disease, low volume tumor and complete surgical cytoreduction do benefit from surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Several national guidelines recommend multimodality treatment for highly selected patients. The management of stage IV colorectal cancer includes several disciplines with focus on resection. A multidisciplinary evaluation of all patients is of crucial importance to define the treatment sequence and individual strategies for each patient.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".