EP-334 The Impact of Combined DNA Repair and Oncogene Mutations in Colorectal Cancer Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims To examine the coexistent effect of either KRAS or BRAF gene status with MMR gene status on patient outcomes in a rural population of colorectal cancer patients. Methods Using a colorectal cancer database, results for patient mutation status for mismatch repair genes and other oncogenes, obtained by DNA sequencing and immunohistochemical analysis, were assessed to see if there were significant differences in survival probability in patients with and without single and combined risk factors. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed to examine overall survival probability in the different groups of patients. Results Comparison of survival outcomes in patients with and without KRAS and MLH1 mutations showed a significant difference (p=0.018). Pairwise analysis reveals that this difference is mostly between the group with wild-type status for both genes and a patient with mutant KRAS and EGFR status with wildtype MLH1 status (p=0.062 with bonferroni correction). Combined KRAS and PMS2 status results in a borderline insignificant (p=0.056) survival difference as well. The effects of mutations in other combinations of oncogenes, as well as sex or tumour sidedness and mutation statuses, were not significant on survival probability. Conclusions These preliminary results should be interpreted with caution owing to the relatively small sample size. This study supports previous findings that mutant oncogenes, combined with altered MMR genes can be predictive of colorectal cancer survival outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".