Differential Prognostic Significance of Morphologic Invasive Markers in Colorectal Cancer: Tumor Budding and Cytoplasmic Podia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In colorectal cancer, the presence of cytoplasmic podia around tumor budding foci may be a morphologic marker for an activated budding phenotype that is associated with cell motility. In this study, we have investigated the prognostic significance of cytoplasmic podia. METHODS: A total of 136 pT3 colorectal cancers were classified according to extent of budding and cytoplasmic podia as identified by immunostaining for cytokeratin. The prognostic significance of budding and cytoplasmic podia was then assessed. RESULTS: The overall survival curves between the groups with high-grade and low-grade cytoplasmic podia were different (5-year survival rates were 60.5 and 83.8 percent respectively, P = 0.0003). Similar results were shown for tumor budding (59.8 and 87.7 percent, P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that the grades of cytoplasmic podia (hazards ratio, 2.4; P = 0.012) and budding (hazards ratio, 2.3; P = 0.024) were independent prognostic factors. Additionally, among colorectal cancers with high-grade budding, the grade of cytoplasmic podia was selected as an independent prognostic factor (hazards ratio, 2.4; P = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Cytoplasmic podia and budding are related but independent pathologic predictive markers in patients with resected pT3 colorectal cancer.
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.
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 it