MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Frequency of surveillance CT scan ordering in patients with stage II/III colorectal cancer.

2025· article· en· W4406869684 on OpenAlexaffabout
William K. Silverstein, Samuel S. Murray, Michael J. Raphael, Adina Weinerman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStage (stratigraphy)Colorectal cancerCancerRadiologyComputed tomographyOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

106 Background: Patients with stage II/III colorectal cancer (CRC) undergo surveillance CT scans to detect early asymptomatic oligometastatic spread, which can be treated with curative intent. However, randomized clinical trials show no difference in 5-year mortality in those that undergo low intensity surveillance (annual) compared a higher intensity strategy (every 6 months). In Ontario, the Program in Evidence-Based Care (PEBC), Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) guidelines recommend surveillance CT scan for patients with stage II/III CRC every 12 months. We aimed to determine the frequency at which clinicians in our Ontario-based hospital system ordered surveillance CT scans for patients with stage II/III CRC. Methods: This single centre retrospective cohort study included all patients that underwent surgical resection for CRC from April 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019 at our academic tertiary care centre in Ontario, Canada. We excluded patients that were followed at an outside hospital, had stage IV disease, had disease recurrence, had a concurrent neoplasm, or did not have CRC. The primary outcome was the proportion of surveillance CT scans completed 10+ months after the previous scan. We also described sociodemographic and medical characteristics of included patients. Follow-up was until August 2023. Results: We included 200 patients. The median age was 62 years (IQR: 52-70), 48% (N=96) were female, the rectum was the most commonly involved disease site (43%, N=86), 38% (N=76) had stage III disease, and 54% (N=107) received adjuvant chemotherapy. A total of 1286 scans were ordered during the study period. Of these, 67% (N=860) were ordered as surveillance. Of these, 18% (n=155) were completed 10 months or longer from the previous scan. The median time interval between surveillance scans was 6.6 months (IQR: 5.9-7.9). Approximately 20% (n=137 of 630) of surveillance scans ordered by general surgeons were completed 10 months or longer from the previous scan, whereas only 9% (n=18 of 205) of scans ordered by medical oncologists were completed 10 months or longer from the previous scan. Less than 1% of surveillance scans (n=3) identified new metastatic disease. Conclusions: The minority of surveillance CT scans ordered in patients with stage II/III CRC in our hospital were timed in concordance with Ontario-based guidelines. Future studies should seek to standardize ordering habits such that they align with best practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.394 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207