MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004142128 · doi:10.7759/cureus.6861

Anastomotic Breakdown Five Years After Neoadjuvant Radiochemotherapy and Ultralow Anterior Resection for Rectal Adenocarcinoma

2020· article· en· W3004142128 on OpenAlexaff
Eric K. Nguyen, Kristopher Dennis

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColoanal anastomosisAnastomosisSurgeryNeoadjuvant therapyDehiscenceStenosisRadiation therapyAdenocarcinomaColorectal cancerRadiologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For carefully selected patients with low-lying rectal cancers, ultralow anterior resection (ULAR) can be an effective alternative to abdominal perineal resection, and together with neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy can provide the opportunity for sphincter preservation. However, ULAR is not without potential postoperative complications, particularly anastomotic dehiscence which increases in likelihood after receiving radiation therapy. While surveillance imaging is not indicated three years beyond initial surgical resection, changes in chronic symptoms refractory to conservative management may warrant further investigation. In this case report, we present an interesting case of late-onset stenosis and anastomotic breakdown following neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy, ULAR, and coloanal anastomosis for a low-lying rectal adenocarcinoma. Effective patient education, reliable symptom assessment, and multidisciplinary collaboration are essential to assessing for long-term treatment-related complications and providing appropriate treatment in a timely manner.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designCase report
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207