MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prevalence of bowel dysfunction in colorectal cancer survivors.

2012· article· en· W2591492785 on OpenAlexaff
Karanvir Sall, Winson Y. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerInternal medicineOdds ratioLogistic regressionCancerPopulationGastroenterologyMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

638 Background: There is limited research on the long-term bowel health outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors even though colorectal surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy can pose significant morbidity for patients. Our aims were to characterize the prevalence of specific bowel complications in CRC survivors and to compare their outcomes with those of non-CRC survivors and non-cancer controls. Methods: Using population-based data from the 2009 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, we identified 3 different groups of adult patients: CRC survivors, non-CRC survivors, and non-cancer controls. Weighted multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to determine the relationship between survivor status and bowel health outcomes, while controlling for patient and disease characteristics. Main outcomes included leakage of gas, mucus, liquid stool, and solid stool. Stratified analyses were subsequently conducted to assess for effect modification based on gender (men vs. women), age (≤ 60 vs. >60), and ethnicity (white vs. non-white). Results: In total, 10,894 subjects were included: 75 CRC survivors, 910 non-CRC survivors, and 9909 non-cancer controls. Baseline characteristics were similar among all 3 patient groups. In univariate analyses, more CRC survivors reported bowel dysfunction, including leakage of: gas (15 vs. 12 vs. 10%, p=0.01), liquid stool (8 vs. 7 vs. 4%, p<0.001), and solid stool (2 vs. 0 vs. 0%, p<0.001) than non-CRC survivors and non-cancer controls. In multivariate analyses, CRC survivors continued to have significantly higher odds of solid stool incontinence (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.24-3.53, p<0.05) when compared to the other groups. The association between surviving CRC and presence of bowel dysfunction was not modified by ethnicity, but specific outcomes, such as solid stool leakage, were more prominent in women (p=0.003) and those who were aged >60 years (p=0.002). Conclusions: Bowel problems are significantly more frequent among CRC survivors than non-CRC survivors and non-cancer patients, especially for women and the elderly. Studies to develop interventions that minimize these bowel complications are needed in order to improve the long-term health and quality of life for CRC survivors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→