Population-based assessment of the outcomes in patients with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The potential for cancers to not be detected on colonoscopy is increasingly recognised, but little is known about patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the outcomes of patients diagnosed with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs). DESIGN: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study, including all patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) in Ontario, Canada from 2003 to 2009. Patients were categorised into three groups: DETECTED (diagnosed within 6 months of first colonoscopy), PCCRC (diagnosed 6-36 months after first colonoscopy) or NOSCOPE (no colonoscopy within 36 months of diagnosis). Univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to study overall survival, surgical treatment, emergency presentation and surgical complications. RESULTS: Overall, 45 104 patients were included, with 2804 being classified as having a PCCRC. Compared with the DETECTED group, PCCRC was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of stage IV disease (17.2% vs 12.9%), worse overall survival (5 year OS: 60.8% vs 68.3%, p<0.0001; adjusted HR: 1.25, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.32, p<0.0001), a higher likelihood of emergency presentation (OR: 2.86, 95% CI 2.56 to 3.13, p<0.001) and lower likelihood of surgical resection (OR: 0.61, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.67, p<0.001). However, patients with PCCRC had significantly better outcomes than those in the NOSCOPE group (stage IV: 37.1%, 5 year OS: 38.9%) CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CRC detected by colonoscopy, PCCRCs are associated with a higher risk of emergent presentation, a lower likelihood of surgical resection and most notably, significantly worse oncological outcomes. However, they have better outcomes than patients with no recent colonoscopy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".