MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Altered circadian rhythm in rest and activity (CircAct): Independent prognostic value for survival in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC)

2007· article· en· W2262285930 on OpenAlexaff
Pasquale F. Innominato, Georg A. Bjarnason, Carlo Garufi, C. Focan, T. Moreau, Thierry Gorlia, James Waterhouse, Sylvie Giacchetti, F. Lévi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineProportional hazards modelCircadian rhythmColorectal cancerHazard ratioOncologyCancerSurvival analysisGastroenterologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

14573 Background: Altered CircAct accelerated tumor growth in experimental models (JNCI 2002, 2005; Cancer Res 2004). CircAct was found to be related to survival in two studies (St) in MCC pts (St 1, Clin Cancer Res 2000; St 2, ASCO 2005 #3553). The current study attempted to provide an independent prognostic stratification criteria for survival according to baseline CircAct as a first step toward the development of a comprehensive prognostic model based on circadian physiology. Methods: CircAct was continuously and non- invasively assessed over 72h with a wrist accelerometer (Ambulatory Monitoring, USA), before chemotherapy in two independent datasets of 169 MCC pts (60% pretreated) at Paul Brousse Hospital (St 1) and 130 chemo-naïve MCC pts registered in the international EORTC 05963 trial (St 2). Activity distribution during rest and wakefulness was objectively quantified by I 92 (Table). The hazard ratios (HR) were 0.37 [95%CI: 0.25 to 0.55] (p<0.0001) in St 1 and 0.56 [0.36 to 0.87] (p=0.01) in St 2. The prognostic value of altered CircAct persisted after adjusting for PS (HR=0.46 [0.30 to 0.69], p=0.0002 in St 1; HR=0.61 [0.38 to 0.97], p=0.04 in St 2). Conclusions: The independent stratification of MCC pts for survival according to baseline altered CircAct occurred using a threshold value of 92 for I [Table: see text] 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)0.001
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→