Distance to the anal verge is associated with pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant therapy has been associated with better prognosis in rectal cancer patients. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between distance to the anal verge (DTAV) and pCR. METHODS: Review of a prospectively maintained database of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who received neoadjuvant treatment was completed. Uni- and multivariate analysis assessed the association between DTAV and pCR after neoadjuvant therapy. RESULTS: Of 827 included patients, 20% had a pCR. We found that pCR rates were 11% for tumors <4 cm, 24% for tumors 4-6 cm, 30% for tumors at 6-8 cm, 17% for tumors 8-10 cm, and 14% for tumors >10 cm from the anal verge (P = 0.002). Multivariate analysis also showed a strong association between DTAV and pCR (P = 0.008). The bimodal distribution of pCR resulted in a lower odds ratio of pCR for tumors <4 and >8 cm from the anal verge. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with low tumors (<4 cm) and higher tumors (>8 cm), were less likely to have a pCR. Further investigation is warranted to determine if these observations are related to tumor biology or possibly differences in radiation technique. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:637-641. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".