Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3548 Background: Colon cancer is potentially curable by surgery in the early stages of the disease. Adjuvant chemotherapy improves disease-free and overall survival in patients with stage III disease, but the magnitude of benefit in stage II colon cancer is less clear. A previous Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) found improved disease-free, but not overall survival (Figueredo et al., 2008). An updated SR/MA was performed to determine the effects of adjuvant chemotherapy on disease-free and overall survival in patients with stage II colon cancer. Methods: Relevant databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were independently searched by all authors, using the same search strategy employed in the original study (1/1988 to 9/2012). Randomized trials containing data on stage II colon cancer patients undergoing adjuvant 5-fluorouracil (5FU) chemotherapy versus observation were included. Pooled results were expressed as hazard ratios (HR) whenever possible, or risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) using a random effects model. Results: Seven studies were identified, and included in the final SR/MA. Six of the 7 studies were included in the disease-free survival analysis (n=4587). Adjuvant 5FU was associated with better disease-free survival (RR 0.84 (95%CI 0.75-0.94)). All 7 studies (n=5353) were included in the overall survival analysis showing an improvement with adjuvant 5FU (HR 0.87 (95%CI 0.78-0.97)). There was no evidence of heterogeneity across the studies (I2 = 0% for all analyses). Conclusions: In stage II colon cancer, adjuvant 5FU chemotherapy statistically improves both disease-free and overall survival. Our SR/MA demonstrates, for the first time, an overall survival advantage with adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer.
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 | 0.015 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".