Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Colorectal adenocarcinoma before the age of 40 is uncommon, and its prognosis is controversial, with many studies reporting a worse prognosis than in older patients and others showing no difference. The current study compared two groups of patients who had surgical resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: The case group was composed of 34 patients younger than 40 (34 +/- 4) years. Detailed pathologic prognosis factors, tumor cell proliferation measured by proliferating cell nuclear antigen, survival, family history, and predisposing conditions were analyzed. Results were compared with a control group constituted of 34 patients older than 65 (75 +/- 6) years matched by gender, cancer site, and Dukes stage. RESULTS: Tumor differentiation, presence of vascular and perineural neoplastic invasion, tumor growth pattern, tumor cell proliferation measured by proliferating cell nuclear antigen count, and survival according to the Kaplan-Meier method were not significantly different between younger and older patients. The only difference between the two groups was a higher prevalence of family history and predisposing conditions for colorectal cancer in younger patients (23 vs. 3 percent; P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: This case-control study documents that pathologic features and prognosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma are comparable in patients younger than 40 years compared with older patients for identical stages. The higher prevalence of positive family history in younger patients suggests a different genetic background compared with older 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".