Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 466

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Morphology of sporadic colorectal cancer with DNA replication errors

Open access
Jass, J R, Do, K-A, Simms, L A, Iino, H, Wynter, C, Pillay, S P, Searle, J, Radford-Smith, G, Young, J, Leggett, B·1998·Gut

Abstract

Background —Up to 15% of colorectal cancers are characterised by DNA microsatellite instability (MIN), shown by the presence of DNA replication errors (RERs). Aims —To identify pathological features that are discriminating for colorectal cancer (CRC) showing extensive MIN. Subjects —A prospective series of 303 patients with CRC and no family history of either familial adenomatous polyposis or hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Methods —DNA was extracted from fresh tissue samples and the presence of MIN was studied at nine loci that included TGFβRII, IGFIIR, and BAX. The 61 cases showing RERs were compared with 63 RER negative cases with respect to a comprehensive set of clinical and pathological variables. Predictive utility of the variables was tested by decision tree analysis. Results —Twenty seven patients with CRC showed extensive RERs (three loci or more) (RER+) and 34 had limited RERs only (28 = one locus; 6 = two loci) (RER+/−), yielding a bimodal distribution. RER+ cancers differed from RER− and RER+/− cases. Tumour type (adenocarcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, and undifferentiated carcinoma) (p=0.001), tumour infiltrating lymphocytes (p=0.001), and anatomical site (p=0.001) were the most significant of the discriminating variables. Algorithms developed by decision tree analysis allowed cases to be assigned to RER+ versus RER− and +/− status with a global sensitivity of 81.5%, specificity of 96%, and overall accuracy of 93%. Conclusion —Pathological examination of CRC allows assignment of RER+ status; assignment is specific and relatively sensitive. Conversely RER− and RER+/− CRC are indistinguishable.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/gut.42.5.673

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 34 references

Cited by

See all 466

Metadata

Authors
Jass, J. R., Do, K.-A., Simms, L. A., Iino, H., Wynter, C., Pillay, S. P., Searle, J., Radford-Smith, G., Young, J., & Leggett, B.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1998-05-01
Volume
42
Issue
5
Pages
673-679
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2124841274
Cited by
466
References
34
FWCI
21.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Morphology of sporadic colorectal cancer with DNA replication errors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.42.5.673
The paper
Jass, J. R., Do, K.-A., Simms, L. A., Iino, H., Wynter, C., Pillay, S. P., Searle, J., Radford-Smith, G., Young, J., & Leggett, B. (1998). Morphology of sporadic colorectal cancer with DNA replication errors. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.42.5.673

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.