Expression of Lewis<sup>a</sup>, Sialyl Lewis<sup>a</sup>, Lewis<sup>x</sup>, Sialyl Lewis<sup>x</sup>, Antigens as Prognostic Factors in Patients with Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Altered expression of blood group-related carbohydrate antigens such as sialyl Lewis (Le)(x) antigen in tumours is associated with tumour progression behaviour and subsequent prognosis. However, the prognostic value of the expression of Le-related antigens in colorectal tumours remains unclear. PURPOSE: To clarify the prognostic value of Le(a), sialyl Le(a), Le(x) and sialyl Le(x) expression in colorectal carcinomas as prognostic factors after surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Colorectal carcinoma samples from 101 patients with primary colorectal carcinoma who underwent surgical resection were subject to immunohistochemical analyses for Lea, sialyl Lea, Lex and sialyl Le(x) expression with the respective monoclonal antibodies. RESULTS: Le(a), sialyl Le(a), Le(x) and sialyl Le(x) were expressed in 69 (68.3%), 73 (72.3%), 66 (65.4%) and 76 (75.3%) carcinomas, respectively. The patients with sialyl Lex-expressing tumours had more advanced cancer than those with nonsialyl Lex-expressing tumours (P=0.0029). The survival time after surgery of patients with Le(x)- or sialyl Le(x)-expressing tumours was significantly shorter than the survival time of those with non-Le(x)- or nonsialyl Le(x)-expressing tumours, respectively (P=0.023 and P=0. 0001, respectively). Cox's regression analysis revealed that Le(x) and sialyl Le(x) expression, separate from stage and histological type, were prognostic variables for patient survival (hazard ratio [HR] for sialyl Le(x)-positive expression to sialyl L(x)-negative expression 2.90; HR for Le(x)-positive expression to Le(x)-negative expression 12.76 in stage I/IV, 0.63 in stage II and 1.69 in stage III). CONCLUSIONS: Le(x) expression and sialyl Le(x) expression in colorectal carcinomas are each associated with poor prognosis. These variables should be considered in the design of future trials.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".