MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Risk and predictors of suicide in colorectal cancer patients: A SEER analysis.

2013· article· en· W2964766142 on OpenAlexaff
Haider Samawi, Abdel Aziz Shaheen, Patricia A. Tang, Daniel Yick Chin Heng, Winson Y. Cheung, Michael M. Vickers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyBaker Hughes (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerInternal medicineUnivariate analysisCancerEpidemiologyPopulationCohortRectumRetrospective cohort studyOncologyGastroenterologyMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9596 Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients have a higher risk of suicide as compared with the general population. Due to differences in the sites/morbidity of recurrences as well as ostomy rates, we sought to evaluate the distribution and predictors of suicide among patients with colon and rectal cancer. Methods: A retrospective analysis was undertaken using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 1973-2009. Patients included were >18yrs and had confirmed adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum. Results: Included in this analysis were 187,996 rectal cancer and 443,368 colon cancer patients. Colon cancer patients were older (median age 71 vs. 67 yrs, p <0.001) and included more females (51 vs. 43%, p <0.001) as compared to rectal cancer patients. Suicide rates were similar (611 [0.14%] vs. 337 [0.18%], p <0.001), as was the median time to suicide for colon vs. rectal cancer patients respectively (37 vs.32 months, p = 0.13). On univariate analysis, having rectal cancer was a predictor of suicide (HR 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10-1.43). However after adjustment for age, sex, race, marital, primary site surgery, stage and one primary, rectal cancer was not a predictor of suicide (HR 1.05; CI: 0.83- 1.33). In the combined CRC cohort, independent predictors of suicide included age >70 (HR 1.55; CI: 1.23-1.94), male gender (HR 7.56; CI: 5.34-10.70), being single (HR 1.56; CI: 1.14- 2.13), distant metastases at diagnosis (HR 1.58; CI: 1.13- 2.21), and white race (HR 3.21; CI: 1.75- 5.88). Also, lack of resection of primary tumor was associated with increased risk of suicide (HR 2.83; CI: 1.97- 4.05). Among colon cancer cohort, older age, male gender, and white race as well as lack of primary resection were independent predictors of suicide. Similarly, the aforementioned predictors as well as metastatic disease on presentation were the independent predictors of suicide in the rectal cohort. Conclusions: The suicide risk in CRC patients is low (< 0.2%) and no difference was found based on location of primary tumor. Gender, age, distant spread of disease, intact primary tumour and race are the main predictors of suicide among colorectal patients. Future studies and interventions are needed to target these high risk groups.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207