MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003017584 · doi:10.1503/cjs.017518

Management of rectal cancer in Canada: an evidence-based comparison of clinical practice guidelines

2020· article· en· W3003017584 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Zuhaib M. Mir, David S. Yu, Shaila J. Merchant, Christopher M. Booth, Sunil V. Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStage (stratigraphy)Colorectal cancerRadiation therapyMagnetic resonance imagingNeoadjuvant therapyCancerRadiation treatment planningRadiologyMedical physicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Rectal cancer requires a multidisciplinary and multimodality treatment approach. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide a framework for delivering consistent, evidence-based health care. We compared provincial/territorial CPGs across Canada to identify areas of variability and evaluate their quality. Methods: We retrieved CPGs from Canadian organizations responsible for cancer care oversight and evaluated their quality and developmental methodology using the AGREE-II instrument. Recommendations for diagnostic and staging investigations, treatment by stage, and post-treatment surveillance of stage I–III rectal cancers were abstracted and compared. Results: We identified 7 sets of CPGs for analysis, varying in content, presentation, quality, and year last updated. Differences were noted in locoregional staging: 4 recommended magnetic resonance imaging over endorectal ultrasonography, 2 recommended either modality, and 3 specified scenarios for one over the other. Recommendations also varied for use of staging computed tomography of the chest versus chest radiography and for surgical management and indications for transanal excision. Recommendations for neoadjuvant therapy in stage II/III disease also differed: 3 guidelines recommended long-course chemoradiation over short-course radiation therapy alone, while 3 others recommended short-course radiation in specific clinical scenarios. Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II/III disease was uniformly recommended, with variable protocols. The use of proctosigmoidoscopy and interval/duration of endoscopic post-treatment surveillance varied among guidelines. Conclusion: Canadian CPGs vary in their recommendations for staging, treatment, and surveillance of rectal cancer. Some of these differences reflect areas with limited definitive evidence. Consistent guidelines with uniform implementation across provinces/territories may lead to more equitable care to 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 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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.199
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.199
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.023
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.725
GPT teacher head0.581
Teacher spread0.143 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207