Prognosis of Gastric Cancer Patients with Node-Negative Metastasis following Curative Resection: Outcomes of the Survival and Recurrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to provide valuable prognostic information on lymph node-negative gastric cancer patients following curative resection. METHODS: Data from 112 lymph node-negative gastric cancer patients who underwent curative resection were reviewed to identify the independent factors of overall survival and recurrence. RESULTS: The five-year survival rate of lymph node-negative gastric cancer patients was 85.7%, and recurrence was identified in 25 patients after curative surgery. The five-year survival rate of lymph node-negative gastric cancer patients was higher than that of lymph node-positive gastric cancer patients (P<0.001). Recurrence in lymph node-negative gastric cancer patients was less than that of lymph node-positive gastric cancer patients (P=0.001). The median survival after recurrence of lymph node-negative gastric cancer patients was longer than that of lymph node-positive gastric cancer patients (P=0.021). Using multivariate analyses, the following results were determined for lymph node-negative gastric cancer patients: sex, operative type and the presence of serosal involvement were independent factors of overall survival; and lymphadenectomy, number of dissected nodes and the presence of serosal involvement were independent factors of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis of lymph node-negative gastric cancer patients was better than that of lymph node-positive gastric cancer patients. Male sex, subtotal gastrectomy and nonserosal involvement should be considered to be the favourable predictors of postoperative long-term survival of lymph node-negative gastric cancer patients. Conversely, limited lymphadenectomy, few dissected nodes and serosal involvement should be considered to be risk factors of postoperative recurrence of lymph node-negative gastric cancer patients.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".