MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical and pathologic characteristics of early-onset colorectal cancer (EoCRC).

2020· article· en· W3005279051 on OpenAlexaff
Arif Ahmad Arif, Daljeet Chahal, Caroline Speers, Sharlene Gill, Fergal Donnellan, Jonathan M. Loree

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineLymphovascular invasionPerineural invasionGastroenterologyIncidence (geometry)Colorectal cancerStage (stratigraphy)CancerPerforationLymph nodeMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

72 Background: Although CRC incidence continues to fall in patients over 50 due to adoption of screening programs, there has been an increasing incidence in patients < 50 where screening does not occur. We investigated the clinical and pathologic characteristics of EoCRC in BC. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 27612 patients diagnosed with CRC and referred to BC Cancer between 1990-2016. Patients < 50 were classified as early onset CRC and analyzed for baseline and disease characteristics. Results: In the 2540/27612 (9.2%) of patients < 50, patients were more likely to be female (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.61-1.44, P < 0.0001), have left sided tumors (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.35-2.01, P < 0.0001), have poorly differentiated tumors (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10-1.34, P = 0.0003), and more patients presented with metastatic disease (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.15-1.38, P < 0.0001) compared to patients ≥50. At diagnosis, patients < 50 were more likely to have a significant complication related to the primary tumor (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06-1.32, P = 0.0041), specifically, greater rates of perforation (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.47-2.31, P < 0.0001). Although high risk features used to guide adjuvant therapy decisions in patients < 50 with stage II CRC were not higher, with similar T4 prevalence, poor differentiation, lymphovascular and perineural invasion, and less inadequate lymph node harvesting (≤12) (all p > 0.05), rates of adjuvant therapy were higher (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.91-3.00, P < 0.0001). This was also noted in stage III CRC (OR 4.11 95% CI 3.07-5.48, P < 0.0001). Age impacted overall survival, with younger patients of all stages living longer (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.68-0.76, P < 0.0001). Similar findings were noted for stage I-III CRC (HR 0.54 0.50-0.58, P < 0.0001) and for patients once they became metastatic (HR 0.84 95% CI 0.75-0.93, P = 0.0025). To control for competing causes of death, we looked at disease specific survival, which continued to show improved outcomes for patients age < 50 in stage I-III (HR 0.88 95% CI 0.81-0.97, P = 0.0016) and stage IV (HR 0.77 95% CI 0.72-0.84, P < 0.0001) CRC. Conclusions: EoCRC patients present with unique clinical and pathologic characteristics which may impact outcome. While the population < 50 has comparable outcomes, they may undergo increased rates of treatment.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.321 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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