Marital status and survival following bladder cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Marital status has been implicated as a prognostic factor in bladder cancer survival. However, few studies have explored potential mechanisms through which this might occur. METHODS: The study identified 19,982 bladder cancer patients from the SEER-Medicare database (1992-8) and constructed sex-specific Cox proportional hazard models to assess the relation between marital status and 5-year survival, while sequentially adding covariates to test possible mechanisms. RESULTS: Multivariable Cox analyses suggest that at every stage, married men had better survival than unmarried men independent of age, race, ecologic socioeconomic status, comorbidities, any or aggressive treatment (assessed separately), and accessing a teaching hospital (hazard ratio (HR) 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.87). Among women with stages II-IV bladder cancer, age and the presence of comorbid conditions explained the association between marital status and survival. However, among those diagnosed with stage I bladder cancer, none of the covariates explained the association between marital status and decreased mortality (fully adjusted HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84). CONCLUSION: The lack of evidence of mediation through treatment, overall health, SES, or quality of healthcare institution among married men and women with stage I disease suggests they may be benefiting from something other than these factors, perhaps practical or social support.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".