MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045022582 · doi:10.1097/spc.0b013e328331124a

The emerging role of computerized tomography in assessing cancer cachexia

2009· review· en· W2045022582 on OpenAlexafffund
Carla M. Prado, Laura Birdsell, Vickie E. Baracos

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchConnecticut Health Foundation
KeywordsSarcopeniaAdipose tissueMedicineCachexiaCancerLean body massSkeletal muscleRadiologyPathologyInternal medicineBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The present review represents an overview of the potential opportunistic use of computerized tomography (CT) to enhance our understanding of abnormal body composition, specifically lean and adipose tissue changes in cancer cachexia. RECENT FINDINGS: One of the characteristics of cancer cachexia is the depletion of muscle with or without adipose tissue loss. Therefore, a body composition tool that specifically distinguishes between these tissues is essential in assessing this syndrome. Cancer patients are routinely evaluated by high resolution imaging such as CT for the purpose of diagnosis and follow-up. Recent work exploiting CT images for body composition analysis has revealed the natural history of cancer cachexia, including progressive alterations in skeletal muscle, adipose tissue, organs, and tumor mass. CT-based quantification of skeletal muscle has permitted identification of individuals with sarcopenia, and links between sarcopenia and functional status, chemotherapy toxicity, time to tumor progression, and mortality. SUMMARY: CT images routinely acquired from health records of cancer patients can be used to quantify specific lean and adipose tissues, to interpret body composition in population-based studies, and to evaluate individual patients in a clinical and therapeutic decision-making setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.181
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations273
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Supportive and Palliative CareSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207