Asian Ethnicity–Related Differences in Gastric Cancer Presentation and Outcome Among Patients Treated at a Canadian Cancer Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Differences in stage-stratified survival have been reported between Asian and Western populations with gastric cancer. This study examines differences in presentation and outcomes among Asian and non-Asian patients evaluated and treated at a Canadian institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed 2,043 patients (159 Asians and 1,884 non-Asians) with gastric adenocarcinoma treated between 1978 and 1997. Overall survival was examined by the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable analysis by Cox proportional hazards was used to identify whether Asian ethnicity had independent prognostic significance for survival. RESULTS: Median survival was 13.1 months for Asians and 11.1 months for non-Asians (P =.0016). Asian patients were younger and had a greater proportion of signet ring cell histology but were less likely to have proximal disease. Signet ring cell histology did not adversely affect survival. By multivariable analysis, proximal location, poor differentiation, and extent of disease were independently associated with worse survival. Survival was improved with curative resection, palliative resection, and palliative chemotherapy. Asian ethnicity was not independently associated with survival (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 1.08). Although a similar proportion of patients underwent curative resection, an interaction was observed between Asian ethnicity and efficacy of resection, with Asians achieving a greater benefit as compared with non-Asians even when adjusted for age and location. CONCLUSION: The disparity between Eastern and Western gastric cancer survival is not explained by the hypothesis of ethnicity-related differences in tumor biology. Although it is not an independent predictor of survival, Asian ethnicity is associated with distinct characteristics at presentation and more favorable outcomes after curative surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".