Gastric Cancer Treatments and Survival Trends in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastric cancer is the third most common cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Despite evidence-based recommendation for treatment, the current treatment patterns for all stages of gastric cancer remain largely unexplored. This study investigates trends in the treatments and survival of gastric cancer. The National Cancer Database was used to identify gastric adenocarcinoma patients from 2004-2016. Chi-square tests were used to examine subgroup differences between disease stages: Stage I, II/III and IV. Multivariate analyses identified factors associated with the receipt of guideline concordant care. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess three-year overall survival. The final cohort included 108,150 patients: 23,584 Stage I, 40,216 Stage II/III, and 44,350 Stage IV. Stage specific guideline concordant care was received in only 73% of patients with Stage I disease and 51% of patients with Stage II/III disease. Patients who received guideline consistent care had significantly improved survival compared to those who did not. Overall, we found only moderate improvement in guideline adherence and three-year overall survival during the 13-year study time period. This study showed underutilization of stage specific guideline concordant care for stage I and II/III disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".