Clinical Delays and Comparative Outcomes in Younger and Older Adults with Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outcome disparities between adults <50 with colorectal cancer (CRC) and older adults may be explained by clinical delays. This study synthesized the literature comparing delays and outcomes between younger and older adults with CRC. Databases were searched until December 2021. We included studies published after 1990 reporting delay in adults <50 that made comparisons to older adults. Comparisons were described narratively and stage between age groups was meta-analyzed. 39 studies were included representing 185,710 younger CRC patients and 1,422,062 older patients. Sixteen delay intervals were compared. Fourteen studies (36%) found significantly longer delays among younger adults, and nine (23%) found shorter delays among younger patients. Twelve studies compared time from symptom onset to diagnosis (N younger = 1538). Five showed significantly longer delays for younger adults. Adults <50 years also had higher odds of advanced stage (16 studies, pooled OR for Stage III/IV 1.76, 95% CI 1.52-2.03). Ten studies compared time from diagnosis to treatment (N younger = 171,726) with 4 showing significantly shorter delays for younger adults. All studies showing longer delays for younger adults examined pre-diagnostic intervals. Three studies compared the impact of delay on younger versus older adult. One showed longer delays were associated with advanced stage and worse survival in younger but not older adults. Longer delays among younger adults with CRC occur in pre-diagnostic intervals.
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 | 0.010 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".