Simultaneous resection for synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastases: A feasibility clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We tested the feasibility of a simultaneous resection clinical trial in patients with synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastases to obtain the necessary information to plan a randomized trial. METHODS: Multicenter feasibility single-arm trial enrolling patients with synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastases eligible for simultaneous resection. Prespecified criteria for feasibility were: proportion of eligible patients enrolled ≥66%, and the proportion of enrolled patients who completed simultaneous resection ≥75%. The prespecified 90-day major postoperative complication rate was 30%. RESULTS: Of 61 eligible patients from February 2017 to August 2019, 41 were enrolled (67%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-78%), 32 underwent simultaneous resection (78%; 95% CI, 63%-88%). Four patients were not enrolled due to the surgeon's preference, three were due to the complexity of resection (right hepatectomy and low anterior resection). Intraoperative complications during liver resection (n = 4) and progression of disease (n = 4) were the main reasons for not undergoing simultaneous resection. The 90-day incidence of major complications was 41% (95% CI, 16%-58%) and the 90-day postoperative mortality was 6% (95% CI, 1.7%-20%). CONCLUSION: According to prespecified criteria, enrolling patients with synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastases to a trial of simultaneous resection is feasible; however, it is associated with higher than anticipated 90-day postoperative complications.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".