Adequacy of lymph node harvest following colectomy for obstructed and nonobstructed colon cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Technical and clinical differences in resection of obstructed and non-obstructed colon cancers may result in differences in lymph node retrieval. The objective of this study is to compare the lymph node harvest following resection of obstructed and nonobstructed colon cancer patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis utilizing the 2014-2018 NSQIP colectomy targeted data set was conducted. One-to-one coarsened exact matching (CEM) was utilized between patients undergoing resection for obstructed and non-obstructed colon cancer. The primary outcome was the adequacy of lymph node retrieval (LNR, ≥12 nodes). RESULTS: CEM resulted in 9412 patients. Patients with obstructed tumors were more likely to have inadequate LNR (13.3% vs 8.2%, p < .001) compared to those with nonobstructed tumors. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients with obstructing tumors had worse LNR compared to non-obstructed tumors (odds ratio [OR]: 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.87; p < .005). Increased age (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.098-0.99), presence of preoperative sepsis (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.055-0.90), left-sided and sigmoid tumors compared to right-sided (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.51-0.81; OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58-0.82, respectively), and open surgical resection compared to an minimally invasive surgical approach were associated with inadequate LNR (p < .05). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that resection for obstructing colon cancer compared to non-obstructed colon cancer is associated with increased odds of inadequate lymph node harvest.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".