Body Composition as an Independent Determinant of 5-Fluorouracil–Based Chemotherapy Toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that lean body mass (LBM) may be useful to normalize doses of chemotherapy. Data from a prospective study were used to determine if the highest doses of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) per kilogram LBM would be associated with dose-limiting toxicity in stage II/III colon cancer patients treated with 5-FU and leucovorin. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Toxicity after cycle 1 was graded according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, version 2.0. Muscle tissue was measured by computerized tomography. An extrapolation to the LBM compartment of the whole body was employed. RESULTS: Mean values of 5-FU/LBM of the entire population were different in terms of presence or absence of toxicity (P = 0.036). A cut point of 20 mg 5-FU/kg LBM seemed to be a threshold for developing toxicity (P = 0.005). This observation was pertinent to women (odds ratio, 16.73; P = 0.021). Women in this study had a relatively low proportion of LBM relative to their body surface area. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that low LBM is a significant predictor of toxicity in female patients administered 5-FU using the convention of dosing per unit of body surface area. We conclude that variation in toxicity between females and males may be partially explained by this feature of body composition.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".