Lymph Node Ratio as a Predictor of Survival for Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Lymph node ratio is the number of lymph nodes with evidence of metastases on pathological review compared to the total number of lymph nodes harvested during oncologic resection. Lymph node ratio is a proven predictor of long-term survival. These data have not been meta-analyzed to determine the prognosis associated with different lymph node ratio cut-offs in colon cancer. Methods Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Articles were included if they compared 5-year overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) between different lymph node ratios for patients undergoing oncologic resection for stages I-III colon cancer. Pairwise meta-analyses using inverse variance random effects were performed. Results From 2587 citations, nine studies with 97,631 patients (female: 51.9%, median age: 61.65 years) were included. A lymph node ratio above .1 resulted in a 49% decrease in the odds of 5-year OS (2 studies; OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.49-.53, P < .00001). A lymph node ratio above .25 resulted in a 56% decrease in the odds of 5-year OS (3 studies; OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.43-.45, P < .00001). A lymph node ratio above .5 resulted in a 65% decrease in the odds of 5-year OS (3 studies; OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.33-.37, P < .00001). Conclusions Lymph node ratios from .1 to .5 are effective predictors of 5-year OS for colon cancer. There appears to be an inverse dose-response relationship between lymph node ratio and 5-year OS. Further study is required to determine whether there is an optimal lymph node ratio cut-off for prognostication and whether it can inform which patients may benefit from more aggressive adjuvant therapy and follow-up protocols.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".