Emergency surgery for colorectal cancer does not result in nodal understaging compared with elective surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that inadequate lymph node harvest may result in pathologically understaged or indeterminate staging of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). We compared the adequacy of nodal staging in patients undergoing emergency surgery compared with elective surgery for CRC. METHODS: Using a prospectively collected CRC surgery database at a tertiary care centre, we performed a cohort study. The mean number of lymph nodes harvested and the proportion of patients who had inadequate staging (< 12 nodes harvested) were compared between emergency and elective surgery cohorts. Our analysis was adjusted for tumour site, type of resection, surgical training and pathologic stage. RESULTS: A total of 1279 of 1356 (94%) enrolled patients had nodal data available for analysis; 161 (13%) patients had emergency surgery and 1118 (87%) had elective surgery. The mean number of nodes removed was higher in the emergency surgery group (mean difference +2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-5.1, p = 0.012). The proportion of patients with inadequate nodal staging did not differ between groups (emergent 16%, elective 17%, p = 0.79). The odds of adequate nodal staging, adjusting for site, type of resection, training and stage was no different between groups (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.47-1.35, p = 0.41). CONCLUSION: The evidence does not support the common belief that emergency surgery is more commonly understaged in CRC. Our data suggest emergency surgery resulted in a significant increase in the average number of nodes harvested, with no difference in inadequate nodal staging.
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 | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".