MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091885023 · doi:10.20471/acc.2020.59.02.03

The Role of Preoperative Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Recurrence of Resectable Colorectal Carcinoma

2020· article· en· W3091885023 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Madiha Ali Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Clinica Croatica · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsCarcinoembryonic antigenMedicineColorectal cancerOncologyCarcinomaInternal medicineGastroenterologyGeneral surgeryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

in colorectal carcinoma, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is a recommended marker for surveillance after curative resection. The aim of the present study was to determine the association of preoperative CEA with recurrence of colorectal carcinoma in our population. The study included 55 patients with all operable stages of colorectal adenocarcinoma treated during the 2012-2014 period, evaluated retrospectively and followed-up for recurrence for 2 years. Data on the baseline (preoperative) CEA levels were retrieved from patient files. On data analysis, SPSS 16.0 was used. in patients with normal preoperative CEA, the rate of recurrence was significantly low (p=0.008) and the likelihood of no recurrence 1.55-fold greater as compared to patients with raised initial CEA levels (p=0.028). in patients with raised preoperative CEA, the risk of recurrence was 5.26-fold greater as compared to those with normal CEA levels (p=0.028). A significant weak positive correlation (r s =0.297) was found between raised CEA and recurrence. A highly significant (p=0.002) moderate positive correlation was recorded in patients aged <50 and moderate positive correlation of borderline significance in males (r s =0.324, p=0.058). Sensitivity was 94.4% and specificity 32.4% in predicting recurrence. Accordingly, preoperative elevated CEA showed a significant weak positive correlation with recurrence while normal preoperative CEA moderately decreased the likelihood of recurrence.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Clinica CroaticaSame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207