Abstracts of presentations to the Annual Meetings of the Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Canadian Association of General Surgeons Canadian Association of Thoracic Surgeons: Canadian Surgery Forum, Toronto, Ont., September 6-9, 2007.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elderly patients are a growing subset of the population who are underrepresented in clinical trials and often present and are treated differently than their younger counterparts with colorectal cancer (CRC).Thus the objective of this study was to characterize the presentation, care and outcomes of CRC in individuals over 75 years of age compared with those aged 50-74.All patients over age 50 who had surgery for CRC between 1997 and 2006 were identified through the Mount Sinai Hospital CRC database.Eight hundred and ninety-five patients had surgery (55.6% male, 44.4% female).There were 623 patients aged 50-74 (mean 62.6) and 272 patients 75 and over (mean 81.5).Older patients selected for CRC surgery are more likely to have colon cancers and lower stage cancers.Although they have more complications and longer hospital stays, their longterm CRC related outcomes are similar to younger patients.Despite these good outcomes they are less likely to have cancers identified by screening and are less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.242 | 0.048 |
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".