Colorectal Cancer in Individuals with Cirrhosis: A Population-Based Study Assessing Practice Patterns, Outcomes, and Predictors of Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Those with cirrhosis who develop colorectal cancer (CRC) are an understudied group who may tolerate treatments poorly and are at risk of worse outcomes. This is a retrospective cohort study of 842 individuals from Ontario, Canada, with a pre-existing diagnosis of cirrhosis who underwent surgery for CRC between 2009 and 2017. Practice patterns, overall survival, and short-term morbidity and mortality were assessed. The most common cirrhosis etiology was non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (52%) and alcohol-associated liver disease (29%). The model for end-stage liver disease score (MELD-Na) was available in 42% (median score of 9, IQR7-11). Preoperative radiation was used in 62% of Stage II/III rectal cancer patients, while postoperative chemotherapy was used in 42% of Stage III colon cancer patients and 38% of Stage II/III rectal cancer patients. Ninety-day mortality following surgery was 12%. Five-year overall survival was 53% (by Stages I-IV, 66%, 55%, 50%, and 11%, respectively). Those with alcohol-associated cirrhosis (HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.5-2.2) had lower survival than those with NAFLD. Those with a MELD-Na of 10+ did worse than those with a lower MELD-Na score (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4-2.6). This study reports poor survival in those with cirrhosis who undergo treatment for CRC. Caution should be taken when considering aggressive treatment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".