A241 TIME FROM DIAGNOSTIC ENDOSCOPY TO CURATIVE RESECTION IN PATIENTS WITH COLON CANCER: A POPULATION-BASED STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Factors associated with time-to-surgery (TTS) and survival in patients with colon cancer has not been well studied. Cancer Care Ontario recommends surgery within 42 days of diagnosis and that 90% of patients meet this benchmark. We describe factors associated with TTS and survival in routine clinical practice. Retrospective population-based cohort study of patients receiving elective colonic resection after diagnosis of colon cancer in Ontario, Canada from 2002–2008. Factors associated with TTS were identified using multivariate log-binomial and Quantile regression at 42 days and 90th percentiles. The association between TTS and cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were examined using multivariate Cox regression. 4,326 patients; median age 71 years and 52% male. Median TTS was 24 days (IQR 14–37); at the 90th percentile 56 days. Factors associated with TTS ≥ 42 days and > 90th percentile included older age, co-morbid illness, surgeon volume, and stage I disease (P < 0.05 for all). In patients whose TTS was either at 42 days or 90th percentile, those ≥ 80 years old waited two weeks longer than those < 60 years, individuals with co-morbid illness waited 10 days longer than those without co-morbidity, and patients with stage I disease waited 10 days longer than those with stage IV disease (P < 0.05 for all). Delay in TTS > 42 days or > 90th percentile was not associated with OS or CSS. Age, co-morbidity, and stage of cancer are associated with TTS. There was no association between TTS and CSS or OS. Southeastern Ontario Academic Medical Association (SEAMO)
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".