MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Muscle Wasting in Cancer Cachexia: Clinical Implications, Diagnosis, and Emerging Treatment Strategies

2010· review· en· W2121063540 on OpenAlexaff
Shontelle Dodson, Vickie E. Baracos, Aminah Jatoi, William J. Evans, David Cella, James T. Dalton, Mitchell S. Steiner

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Medicine · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCachexiaWastingMedicineAppetiteSkeletal muscleCancerInternal medicineSarcopeniaBioinformaticsAnemiaOncologyEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer cachexia is a complex metabolic condition characterized by loss of skeletal muscle. Common clinical manifestations include muscle wasting, anemia, reduced caloric intake, and altered immune function, which contribute to increased disability, fatigue, diminished quality of life, and reduced survival. The prevalence of cachexia and the impact of this disorder on the patient and family underscore the need for effective management strategies. Dietary supplementation and appetite stimulation alone are inadequate to reverse the underlying metabolic abnormalities of cancer cachexia and have limited long-term impact on patient quality of life and survival. Therapies that can increase muscle mass and physical performance may be a promising option; however, there are currently no drugs approved for the prevention or treatment of cancer cachexia. Several agents are in clinical development, including anabolic agents, such as selective androgen receptor modulators and drugs targeting inflammatory cytokines that promote skeletal muscle catabolism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations326
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of MedicineSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207