MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Hormone replacement use, age, and prognosis for women with non-small cell lung cancer

2007· article· en· W2245717755 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Robinson, Modupe F. Ayeni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversitySudbury Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerInternal medicineCancerProportional hazards modelPerformance statusHormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)Univariate analysisStage (stratigraphy)OncologyGynecologyMultivariate analysisTestosterone (patch)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

18099 Background: Lung cancer is the leading cancer cause of mortality in women. A recent report by Ganti et al, presented at ASCO, suggested that women who had been taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT) had significantly decreased survival after a lung cancer diagnosis. In addition, in women fit enough to be enrolled on randomized controlled trials in advanced lung cancer, younger women (under age 60) may have a worse prognosis than older women. The purpose of this current study was to do an institutional review on women diagnosed with lung cancer to determine whether these novel prognostic factor results could be duplicated. Methods: All female patients who were diagnosed with lung cancer between January 1999 and December 2003 were reviewed for age at diagnosis, stage, treatment, smoking history, hormonal therapy, performance status, weight loss, age at menopause, and overall survival. Patients were excluded if they had small cell lung cancer, were unknown primary, or had previous or synchronous non-lung, non-skin, cancers. Statistics were performed using Chi- Squared tests for categorical variables, while the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox-Regression models were used for univariate and multivariate analysis of overall survival. Results: Of 397 patients, the majority (68%) were stage 3 or 4. There were very few never smokers (5%). Twenty-nine percent of patients had prior HRT, with no effect on overall survival, with median survivals of 13 months in the non- HRT group and 14 months in the HRT group. The most powerful predictors of overall survival were: Stage, Performance Status, and Weight Loss. Patients aged 60–75 did as poorly as younger patients (median survival 10 months for stage 4 disease). Conclusions: Stage, performance status, and weight loss, are the most powerful predictors of survival for women with lung cancer. Patients with prior HRT use do not have inferior outcomes compared to non-HRT users. In a non-clinical trial population, patients under age 60 have similar outcomes as women aged 60 to 75. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicEstrogen and related hormone effects→French-language works237,207→