MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210548176 · doi:10.2217/cer-2021-0133

A real-world, population-based study for the outcomes of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer to the liver with distant lymph node metastases treated with metastasectomy

2022· article· en· W4210548176 on OpenAlexaff
Omar Abdel‐Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetastasectomyMedicineHazard ratioColorectal cancerLymph nodePropensity score matchingInternal medicineOncologyCancerSurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: To assess the impact of metastasectomy on survival outcomes of patients with concurrent liver and distant nodal metastases. Materials & methods: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was accessed and patients with colorectal liver metastases (with or without distant lymph node involvement) were reviewed. Kaplan–Meier survival estimates were then used to assess the impact of the presence of distant lymph node metastases as well as the impact of metastasectomy on overall and cancer-specific survival. A propensity score matching was then conducted between patients with distant lymph node metastases who had surgery versus those who did not have surgery. Results: A total of 15,325 patients were included in the current analysis including 1603 patients who have liver and distant nodal metastases (10.5%) and 13,722 patients who have liver metastases only (89.5%). The following factors were associated with better overall survival (OS): younger age (hazard ratio [HR] with increasing age: 1.024; 95% CI: 1.022–1.025), white race (HR for African–American race vs white race: 1.233; 95% CI: 1.175–1.295), distal site of the primary (HR: 0.808; 95% CI: 0.778–0.840), absence of distant lymph nodes (HR: 0.697; 95% CI: 0.659–0.737), metastasectomy (HR for no metastasectomy vs metastasectomy: 1.954; 95% CI: 1.858–2.056). Within the postpropensity cohort, metastasectomy was associated with improved OS among patients with concurrent distant lymph node and liver metastases (median OS of 20 vs 11 months; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Metastasectomy seems to be associated with improved survival among patients with concurrent lymph node and liver metastases. It is unclear if improved survival is related to the surgical intervention or to the fact that surgically treated patients have a better baseline general condition and hence improved outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Effectiveness ResearchSame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207