MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prognostic impact of tumour laterality in early-stage colon cancer: A population-based study.

2017· article· en· W2891106916 on OpenAlexaffabout
Safiya Karim, Kelly Brennan, Sulaiman Nanji, Scott Berry, Christopher M. Booth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerDescending colonSplenic flexureInternal medicineCancerLateralityStage (stratigraphy)CohortPopulationGastroenterologyAscending colonProportional hazards modelOncologyCecumCancer registrySigmoid colonColonoscopyRectum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e15148 Background: Recent data has suggested that disease biology and outcome of colon cancer may differ between right-sided and left-sided tumours. Here we explore differences in laterality based on disease characteristics and outcomes in a population-based cohort of early-stage colon cancer. Methods: Electronic records of treatment were linked to the Ontario Cancer Registry to identify all patients with colon cancer in 2002-2008. The study population included a 25% random sample of all patients with resected stage 0-III disease. Right-sided colon cancer was defined as any tumor arising in the cecum, ascending colon, hepatic flexure or transverse colon. Left-sided colon cancer was defined as any tumor arising from the splenic flexure, descending colon, sigmoid colon or rectosigmoid colon. Log binomial regression was used to identify factors associated with laterality. Cox models were used to explore the association between laterality and overall (OS) and cancer-specific (CSS) survival. Results: Among the study cohort (n = 6391) median age was 72 and 52% (3307/6391) had right-sided disease. Stage distribution was 2% (98/6391) stage 0, 17% (1091/6391) stage I, 38% (2446/6391) stage II, and 43% (2756/6391) stage III. Patients with right-sided colon cancer were more likely to be older (p < 0.001), female (p < 0.001) and have greater co-morbidity (p = 0.001). Right-sided cancer was more likely to be T4 (19% vs 16%, p = 0.001) and poorly differentiated (21% vs 10%, p < 0.001) but less likely to be node positive (42% vs 45%, p = 0.029) compared to left-sided disease. In adjusted analyses there was no difference in long-term survival for right-sided compared to left-sided colon cancer: OS HR 1.00 (95%CI, 0.92-1.08); CSS HR 1.00 (0.91-1.10). These results were consistent when the survival analyses were restricted to stage III disease: OS HR 1.03 (95%CI 0.93-1.14); CSS HR 1.10 (0.97-1.24). Conclusions: In this population-based cohort of early-stage resected colon cancer disease laterality was not associated with long-term survival.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.166
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207