PII S0360-3016(99)00327-2 CLINICAL INVESTIGATION Large Bowel A POPULATION-BASED STUDY OF RECTAL CANCER: PERMANENT COLOSTOMY AS AN OUTCOME
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The objectives of this study are to describe the utilization of surgery and of radiotherapy in the treatment of newly diagnosed rectal cancer in Ontario between 1982 and 1994, and to describe the probability of permanent colostomy at any time after the diagnosis of rectal cancer, as an outcome of the treatment of newly diagnosed rectal cancer. Methods and Materials: Electronic records of rectal cancer (International Classification of Diseases code 154) from the Ontario Cancer Registry (n 5 18,695, excluding squamous, basaloid, cloacogenic, and carcinoid histology) were linked to surgical records from all Ontario hospitals, and radiotherapy (RT) records from Ontario cancer centers. Procedures occurring within 4 months of diagnosis, or within 4 months of another procedure for rectal cancer, were considered part of initial treatment. Multivariate analyses controlled for age, sex, and year of diagnosis. Results: Resection plus permanent colostomy was performed in 33.1 % of cases, whereas local excision or resection without permanent colostomy was performed in 38.2%. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated higher odds ratios (OR) for resection plus permanent colostomy in all regions of Ontario relative to Toronto. The OR for postoperative RT following local excision or resection without permanent colostomy varied among the regions relative to Toronto (e.g., OR Ottawa 5 0.59, OR Hamilton 5 0.76, OR London 5 1.25). The relative risk
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".