Results of curative surgery and postoperative chemoradiation for rectal adenocarcinoma in British Columbia, 1985 to 1994.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess factors affecting survival and pelvic recurrence after surgery and postoperative chemoradiation for rectal cancer in order to design improved management strategies. DESIGN: A chart review. SETTING: The British Columbia Cancer Agency. PATIENTS: One hundred and ninety-one consecutive patients who had rectal cancer treated between 1985 and 1994. Median follow-up was 39 months. INTERVENTIONS: Surgical excision of the cancer with intent to cure followed by chemoradiation. OUTCOME MEASURES: Multivariate analysis, to determine whether survival and pelvic recurrence were affected by tumour stage, nodal status, type of surgical procedure and presence of residual disease, and the quality of pathology reporting with respect to evaluation of radial resection margins and number of lymph nodes examined. RESULTS: Overall 5-year disease-specific survival was 60% and pelvic recurrence was 25%. Survival was affected by tumour stage (p < 0.02), nodal status (p < 0.001), type of surgical procedure (p < 0.04), presence of residual disease (p < 0.02) and pelvic recurrence (p < 0.0001). Pelvic recurrence was affected by the presence of residual disease (p < 0.001) but not by tumour stage (p < 0.14), nodal status (p < 0.37) or type of surgcial procedure (p < 0.20). Radial margins were evaluated in 44% of pathology reports and the median number of lymph nodes assessed was 6. CONCLUSIONS: Survival was most significantly affected by pelvic recurrence. Strategies to minimize pelvic recurrence including preoperative radiation and the principle of careful mesorectal excision to maximize the achievement of negative radial resection margins and negative residual disease are recommended. Also needed are standards for evaluating radial margins and lymph nodes to improved pathology reports.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".