Venous invasion detectable only by elastic stain shows weak prognostic value in colon cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Large venous invasion (VI) is prognostically significant in colon cancer. The increased use of elastic stains by pathologists results in higher VI detection rates compared to routine stains alone. This study assesses the prognostic value of VI detected by elastic versus routine stains. METHODS AND RESULTS: Colon cancers resected between 2014 and 2017 underwent pathology slide review for VI. Cases without VI on routine stain were stained by elastic trichrome and re-examined. Demographic, clinical, pathological and outcome data were gathered by retrospective review. Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests were performed for survival categorised by VI status. Cox regression was performed for multivariate analysis. Of 277 cases, 97 (35%) showed VI by routine stain alone, with an additional 58 (21%) discovered by subsequent elastic stains. Thus, elastic trichrome increased VI detection by 60%. However, only VI detected by routine stain showed worse overall survival (P < 0.001). VI detected by elastic stain only was not prognostically different from cases without VI (P = 0.428). For stage 2 cancers, VI was not prognostically significant regardless of method of detection. For stage 3 cases, only VI detected by routine stain was prognostic for overall survival (P = 0.002) with a hazard ratio of 4.04 by multivariate regression (P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: VI detectable only by elastic stains do not show prognostic significance for survival in colon cancer. For pathologists with high baseline VI detections rates on routine stain, reflexive use of elastic stain may be of limited value.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".