Lymph node metastases and recurrence in pT1 colorectal cancer: Prediction with the International Budding Consortium Score—A retrospective, multi‐centric study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting proposes histological tumour type, lymphovascular invasion, tumour grade, perineural invasion, extent, and dimensions of invasion as risk factors for lymph node metastases and tumour progression in completely endoscopically resected pT1 colorectal cancer (CRC). OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to propose a predictive and reliable score to optimise the clinical management of endoscopically resected pT1 CRC patients. METHODS: This multi-centric, retrospective International Budding Consortium (IBC) study included an international pT1 CRC cohort of 565 patients. All cases were reviewed by eight expert gastrointestinal pathologists. All risk factors were reported according to international guidelines. Tumour budding and immune response (CD8+ T-cells) were assessed with automated models using artificial intelligence. We used the information on risk factors and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression to develop a prediction model and generate a score to predict the occurrence of lymph node metastasis or cancer recurrence. RESULTS: The IBC prediction score included the following parameters: lymphovascular invasion, tumour buds, infiltration depth and tumour grade. The score has an acceptable discrimination power (area under the curve of 0.68 [95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.61-0.75]; 0.64 [95% CI 0.57-0.71] after internal validation). At a cut-off of 6.8 points to discriminate high-and low-risk patients, the score had a sensitivity and specificity of 0.9 [95% CI 0.8-0.95] and 0.26 [95% 0.22, 0.3], respectively. CONCLUSION: The IBC score is based on well-established risk factors and is a promising tool with clinical utility to support the management of pT1 CRC patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".