MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153693944 · doi:10.1002/cncr.25041

Predictors of weight loss during radiotherapy in patients with stage I or II head and neck cancer

2010· article· en· W2153693944 on OpenAlexaff
Alice Nourissat, Isabelle Bairati, E Samson, A. Fortin, Michel Gélinas, Abdenour Nabid, François Brochet, Bernard Têtu, François Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité du QuébecUniversité LavalHôtel-Dieu de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWeight lossOdynophagiaHead and neck cancerConfidence intervalStage (stratigraphy)Quality of life (healthcare)CancerReceiver operating characteristicRadiation therapyDysphagiaInternal medicineSurgeryObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to identify predictors of weight loss during radiotherapy (RT) in patients with stage I or II head and neck (HN) cancer. METHODS: This study was conducted as part of a phase 3 chemoprevention trial. A total of 540 patients were randomized. The patients were weighed before and after RT. Their baseline characteristics, including lifestyle habits, diet, and quality of life, were assessed as potential predictors. Predictors were identified using multiple linear regressions. The reliability of the model was assessed by bootstrap resampling. A receiver operating characteristics curve was generated to estimate the model's accuracy in predicting critical weight loss (>or=5%). RESULTS: The mean weight loss was 2.2 kg (standard deviation, 3.4). Five factors were associated with a greater weight loss: all HN cancer sites other than the glottic larynx (P<.001), higher pre-RT body weight (P<.001), stage II disease (P = .002), dysphagia and/or odynophagia before RT (P = .001), and a lower Karnofsky performance score (P = .028). There was no association with pre-RT lifestyle habits, diet, or quality of life. The bootstrapping method confirmed the reliability of this predictive model. The area under the curve was 71.3% (95% confidence interval, 65.8-76.9), which represents an acceptable ability of the model to predict critical weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: These results could be useful to clinicians for screening patients with early stage HN cancer treated by RT who require special nutritional attention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations77
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207