Long-term Outcomes in Young Adult Survivors of Colorectal Cancer: A Population-based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study evaluated long-term outcomes of young survivors of colorectal cancer including survival, development of acute illnesses, and childbirth.\nMethods: Persons aged 20-44 diagnosed with colorectal cancer and surviving at least five years were identified using the Ontario Cancer Registry and compared to randomly selected controls. Outcomes included death, admission to hospital for acute illness, and childbirth in women, determined by linkage to provincial administrative data.\nResults: There were 917 cancer survivors in this study. Survivors were more likely to die (HR 8.2, 95%CI [5.8, 11.6]), and require admission to hospital for acute illness (rate ratio 3.4, 95%CI [2.9, 4.1]) than controls. There was no difference in admissions for childbirth in women (HR 0.6, 95%CI [0.3, 1.4]).\nConclusions: Five-year survivors of colorectal cancer remain at high risk of long-term death and illness. Aggressive surveillance for recurrent malignant disease is necessary to mitigate risk of death.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".