MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320499250 · doi:10.1093/bjsopen/zrad005

Trends of colorectal cancer surgery in 2022

2023· article· en· W4320499250 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBJS Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColorectal cancerMedicineGeneral surgeryCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trends of colorectal cancer surgery in 20222022 was a great year for high-quality submissions to BJS Open in the field of colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery.Layfield and associates 1 documented how changes in treatments delivered by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) over 14 years, demonstrating how implementation of CRC management based on the latest gold standards, significantly improved survival and reduced mortality in a high-volume UK institution.Of note, concerning older patients, they demonstrated the changing pattern in MDT decisions with a decreased rate of surgical intervention.Despite this reduction in surgery and oncological therapies, the survival benefit was also seen among patients aged 80 years or more, which may reflect the 'inclusion of patients who would previously have undergone surgery but lived a little longer without it' or had fatal complications after major procedures.Regarding management, in their analysis of 41 800 patients from Denmark and Yorkshire (UK), Taylor and co-authors 2 reported the application of specific policies in Denmark at a national level that resulted in a reduction in left-sided emergency resections and an increase in stenting.This resulted in conversion of potential emergency into elective resections and reduced 30-day postoperative mortality.The debate on management leads to other important topics: cost-effectiveness and correction of modifiable preoperative risk factors with protocols implemented at institutional level.In particular, a large Canadian study 3 , analysing circular stapler anastomotic rings specimens from nearly 490 CRC resections, confirmed that their routine pathologic evaluation is not useful, as no patients had cancer in the ring specimen, 5.1 per cent had benign pathological findings and patients' management was never affected by this result.Also, in another registry study including nearly 6200 patients from Sweden 4 , authors documented that the routine use of rectal washout during anterior resection did not impact the 3-year oncological outcomes, even if a reduction in local recurrence risk after the 5-year follow-up was observed.In another large Danish study 5 , authors investigated the effect of screening for modifiable high-risk factors combined with targeted interventions in CRC surgery.These consisted of a screening for anaemia, low functional capacity, and nutritional status and their implementation (iron supplementation, pre-habilitation, nutritional supplements, and consultation with a dietician) for a minimum of 4 weeks before surgery.Even when analyses were balanced for age, sex, smoking habits, stage of disease, ASA score, surgical approach, and surgical procedure, the intervention was associated with a 10.9 per cent absolute risk reduction of a complicated postoperative course, primarily due to a reduction in severe complications, highlighting what and how it's worth to correct.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.313 · 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