MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

American Joint Committee on Cancer prognostic factors consensus conference

2000· review· en· W3016113118 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerStage (stratigraphy)CancerCarcinoembryonic antigenInternal medicineOncologyCarcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), which regularly reviews TNM staging systems, established a working party to develop recommendations for colorectal carcinoma. METHODS: A multidisciplinary consensus conference using published literature developed an arbitrary classification system of prognostic marker value (Category I, IIA, IIB, III, and IV), which forms the framework for this report. RESULTS: The working party concluded that several T categories should be subdivided: pTis into intraepithelial carcinoma (pTie) and intramucosal carcinoma (pTim); pT1 into pT1a and pT1b corresponding to the absence or presence of blood or lymphatic vessel invasion, respectively; and pT4 into pT4a and pT4b according to the absence or presence of tumor involving the surface of the specimen, respectively. The working party also recommended that TNM groups be stratified based on the presence or absence of elevated serum levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) (>/= 5 ng/mL) on preoperative clinical examination. In addition, the working party also concluded that carcinoma of the appendix should be excluded from the colorectal carcinoma staging system because of fundamental differences in natural history. CONCLUSIONS: The TNM categories and stage groupings for colorectal carcinoma published in the current AJCC manual have clinical and academic value. However, a few categories require subdivision to provide increasing discrimination for individual patients. The serum marker CEA should be added to the staging system, whereas multiple other factors should be recorded as part of good clinical practice. Although many molecular and oncogenic markers show promise to supplement or modify the current staging systems eventually, to the authors' knowledge none have yet been evaluated sufficiently to recommend their inclusion in the TNM system.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.229 · 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