Pathological Features and Prognostication in Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prognostication of colorectal cancer (CRC) has traditionally relied on staging as defined by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging classifications. However, clinically, there appears to be differences in survival patterns independent of stage, suggesting a complex interaction of stage, pathological features, and biomarkers playing a role in guiding prognosis, risk stratification, and guiding neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies. Histological features such as tumour budding, perineural invasion, apical lymph node involvement, lymph node yield, lymph node ratio, and molecular features such as MSI, KRAS, BRAF, and CDX2 may assist in prognostication and optimising adjuvant treatment. This study provides a comprehensive review of the pathological features and biomarkers that are important in the prognostication and treatment of CRC. We review the importance of pathological features and biomarkers that may be important in colorectal cancer based on the current evidence in the literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".