Which Is the Most Suitable Classification for Colorectal Cancer, Log Odds, the Number or the Ratio of Positive Lymph Nodes?

Objective: The aim of the current study was to investigate which is the most suitable classification for colorectal cancer, log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) classification or the classifications based on the number of positive lymph nodes (pN) and positive lymph node ratio(LNR) in a Chinese single institutional population. Design: Clinicopathologic and prognostic data of 1297 patients with colorectal cancer were retrospectively studied. The log-rank statistics, Cox’s proportional hazards model, the Nagelkerke R 2 index and a Harrell’s C statistic were used. Results: Univariate and three-step multivariate analyses identified that LNR was a significant prognostic factor and LNR classification was superior to both the pN and LODDS classifications. Moreover, the results of the Nagelkerke R 2 index (0.130) and a Harrell’s C statistic (0.707) of LNR showed that LNR and LODDS classifications were similar and LNR was a little better than the other two classifications. Furthermore, for patients in each LNR classification, prognosis was homologous between those in different pN or LODDS classifications. However, for patients in pN1a, pN1b, LODDS2 and LODDS3 classifications, significant differences in survival were observed among patients in different LNR classifications. Conclusions: For patients with colorectal cancer, the LNR classification is more suitable than pN and LODDS classification

The making of energy evidence: How exclusions of Social Sciences and Humanities are reproduced (and what researchers can do about it)

Overland and Sovacool (2020) and Baum and Bartkowski (2020), in this journal, have provided important insights on the neglect of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) in energy and sustainability research. In this response, we develop this conversation further, arguing that the commissioning and funding of energy research can be understood as part of a process of making evidence, which is co-constructive with policy-making. This helps us analyse how exclusions of SSH within the energy research-policy landscape are reproduced, and, crucially, to identify opportunities for change. We draw on concepts from Science and Technology Studies regarding the co-construction of knowledges and policies; epistemic communities; and the active role of expectations and imaginaries around energy evidence, and we apply these to empirical material from workshops with EU policyworkers, and analysis of key documents relating to European energy research and policy. We explore ways that SSH are excluded through expectations around: i) the research enterprise and purpose of evidence; ii) the contributions of different SSH communities, iii) how different epistemic communities should work together; and iv) validity and rigour. Finally, we offer some reflections for research professionals and research funding organisations who wish to integrate SSH more meaningfully into energy research and policy, including suggestions around actors; documents; and the processes of reviewing and monitoring that are involved in the making of energy evidence