MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004091453 · doi:10.14740/gr1239

Colon Cancer: A Clinician’s Perspective in 2019

2020· review· en· W3004091453 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerColonoscopyCancerPopulationMicrosatellite instabilityInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)OncologyEnvironmental healthGeneAlleleGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colon cancer is a common preventable cancer. With the adoption of widespread colon cancer screening in the developed countries, the incidence and mortality of colon cancer have decreased in the targeted population. But unfortunately, the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have been increasing over the last 25 years in the young adults below the age of 50. There is disparity in benefit, i.e. reduction in risk of death between right-sided and left-sided colon cancer by screening colonoscopy. The reason could be multifactorial and various measures have been taken to decrease this disparity. Although most of the screened populations are average risk individuals, a minority of the population have various risk factors for developing colon cancer and need to follow specific colon cancer screening guidelines. Gene mutations (adenomatous polyposis coli (APC), deleted in colon cancer (DCC), K-ras, p53, B-Raf proto-oncogene serine/threonine kinase (BRAF), mismatch repair genes) and microsatellite instability lead to the development of colon cancer. Although various non-invasive methods of colon cancer screening are now available, colonoscopy remains the gold standard of colon cancer screening and adenoma detection rate is now being used as the quality metrics in screening colonoscopy. Although Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) and American College of Physicians (ACP) recommend initiating screening colonoscopy at age 50 years in all individuals except African Americans who should begin screening colonoscopy at age 45 years, the American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends initiating screening colonoscopy at age 45 years in all individuals irrespective of race and ethnicity. Low-volume split-dose prep has been found to be as effective as high-volume split-dose prep and more tolerable to patients with increased compliance. Boston bowel preparation scale is recommended to measure the quality of colon cleansing. CRC is curative if it is diagnosed at an early stage but various palliative treatment options (endoscopic, oncologic and surgical) are available in advanced stages of this cancer. Adequate number of lymph node assessment during surgery is essential in accurate staging of CRC. Checkpoint inhibitors have been found to have dramatic response and durable clinical benefit in dMMR/MSI-H metastatic CRC. Different genetic and immune-oncologic research trials are ongoing for early detection and better management of CRC.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.328 · 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