Anemia as an independent prognostic factor for survival in patients with cancer: a systemic, quantitative review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anemia is common in cancer patients, although the prevalence is influenced both by the type of malignancy and the choice of treatment. Individual studies have compared the survival of patients with and without anemia and have shown reduced survival times in patients with various malignancies, including carcinoma of the lung, cervix, head and neck, prostate, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. The objective of this study was to systematically review, to summarize, and to obtain an overall estimate of the effect of anemia on survival in patients with malignant disease. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was carried out using the MEDLINE data base and reviewing the reference lists from published studies. Two hundred papers were identified. Of these, 60 papers that reported the survival of cancer patients according to either hemoglobin levels or the presence of anemia were included. Among these papers, 25% related to patients with lung carcinoma, 17% related to patients with head and neck carcinoma, 12% related to patients with multiple myeloma, 10% related to patients with prostate carcinoma, 8% related to patients with cervicouterine carcinoma, 7% related to patients with leukemia, 5% related to patients with lymphoma, and 16% related to patients with other types of malignancies. RESULTS: The relative risk of death increased by 19% (95% confidence interval, 10-29%) in anemic patients with lung carcinoma, by 75% (37-123%) in anemic patients with head and neck carcinoma, by 47% (21-78%) in anemic patients with prostate carcinoma, and by 67% (30-113%) in anemic patients with lymphoma. The overall estimate increase in risk was 65% (54-77%). CONCLUSIONS: Anemia is associated with shorter survival times for patients with lung carcinoma, cervicouterine carcinoma, head and neck carcinoma, prostate carcinoma, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".