The gut barrier as a gatekeeper in colorectal cancer treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
// Roy Hajjar 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , Carole Richard 2 , 3 , 5 and Manuela M. Santos 1 , 4 , 6 1 Nutrition and Microbiome Laboratory, Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada 2 Department of Surgery, Digestive Surgery Service, Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada 3 Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada 4 Institut du cancer de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada 5 Division of General Surgery, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada 6 Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada Correspondence to: Roy Hajjar, email: roy.hajjar@umontreal.ca Keywords: colorectal cancer; gut microbiome; gut barrier; colorectal surgery; anastomotic leak Received: July 09, 2024     Accepted: July 15, 2024     Published: August 14, 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Hajjar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. ABSTRACT Colorectal cancer (CRC) is highly prevalent and is a major cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. The incidence rate of CRC remains alarmingly high despite screening measures. The main curative treatment for CRC is a surgical resection of the diseased bowel segment. Postoperative complications usually involve a weakened gut barrier and a dissemination of bacterial proinflammatory lipopolysaccharides. Herein we discuss how gut microbiota and microbial metabolites regulate basal inflammation levels in the gut and the healing process of the bowel after surgery. We further elaborate on the restoration of the gut barrier function in patients with CRC and how this potentially impacts the dissemination and implantation of CRC cells in extracolonic tissues, contributing therefore to worse survival after surgery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".