MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resting Energy Expenditure and Body Mass Changes in Women During Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

2007· article· en· W2075491834 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Nursing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerWeight gainInternal medicineResting energy expenditureChemotherapyWeight changeAdjuvant chemotherapyLean body massCancerFat massEndocrinologyOncologyBody mass indexWeight lossEnergy expenditureBody weightObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Weight gain is a commonly reported side effect of adjuvant chemotherapy. A change in resting energy expenditure during treatment has been a suggested mechanism for weight gain. We prospectively measured resting energy expenditure, weight change, and body composition (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) in 10 women undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. There was no change in resting energy expenditure across cycles of chemotherapy (P =.78) or from baseline to the end of treatment (1,189.68 +/- 80.27 vs 1,205.76 +/- 56.71 kcal/d; P =.74). Overall, participants did not gain weight across treatment. However, there was an overall trend toward weight gain (66.3 +/- 5.1 vs 68.2 +/- 5.0 kg; P =.09), and participants did show an increase in total fat mass (24.2 +/- 3.8 vs 26.5 +/- 3.2 kg; P =.04), whereas muscle mass remained the same. Although no change in resting energy expenditure was seen, the observed increase in total fat mass is consistent with a decrease in physical activity level commonly reported with adjuvant chemotherapy treatment of breast cancer, and these body composition changes may have important health implications for survivors.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.303 · 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