Concurrent evolution of cancer cachexia and heart failure: bilateral effects exist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer cachexia is defined as a multifactorial syndrome of involuntary weight loss characterized by an ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass and progressive functional impairment. It is postulated that cardiac dysfunction/atrophy parallels skeletal muscle atrophy in cancer cachexia. Cardiotoxic chemotherapy may additionally result in cardiac dysfunction and heart failure in some cancer patients. Heart failure thus may be a consequence of either ongoing cachexia or chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity; at the same time, heart failure can result in cachexia, especially muscle wasting. Therefore, the subsequent heart failure and cardiac cachexia can exacerbate the existing cancer-induced cachexia. We discuss these bilateral effects between cancer cachexia and heart failure in cancer patients. Since cachectic patients are more susceptible to chemotherapy-induced toxicity overall, this may also include increased cardiotoxicity of antineoplastic agents. Patients with cachexia could thus be doubly unfortunate, with cachexia-related cardiac dysfunction/heart failure and increased susceptibility to cardiotoxicity during treatment. Cardiovascular risk factors as well as pre-existing heart failure seem to exacerbate cardiac susceptibility against cachexia and increase the rate of cardiac cachexia. Hence, chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity, cardiovascular risk factors, and pre-existing heart failure may accelerate the vicious cycle of cachexia-heart failure. The impact of cancer cachexia on cardiac dysfunction/heart failure in cancer patients has not been thoroughly studied. A combination of serial echocardiography for detection of cachexia-induced cardiac remodeling and computed tomography image analysis for detection of skeletal muscle wasting would appear a practical and non-invasive approach to develop an understanding of cardiac structural/functional alterations that are directly related to cachexia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".