MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2309897017 · doi:10.15586/jkcvhl.2016.45

Review of the Interaction Between Body Composition and Clinical Outcomes in Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer Treated With Targeted Therapies

2016· review· en· W2309897017 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Yip, Daniel Yick Chin Heng, Patricia A. Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Kidney Cancer and VHL · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal cell carcinomaTargeted therapyInternal medicineOncologyOverweightSarcopeniaClinical trialCancerObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) currently focuses on inhibition of the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway and the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway. Obesity confers a higher risk of RCC. However, the influence of obesity on clinical outcomes in mRCC in the era of targeted therapy is less clear. This review focuses on the impact of body composition on targeted therapy outcomes in mRCC. The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium database has the largest series of patients evaluating the impact of body mass index (BMI) on outcomes in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy. Overall survival was significantly improved in overweight patients (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2), and this observation was externally validated in patients who participated in Pfizer trials. In contrast, sarcopenia is consistently associated with increased toxicity to inhibitors of angiogenesis and mTOR. Strengthening patients with mRCC and sarcopenia, through a structured exercise program and dietary intervention, may improve outcomes in mRCC treated with targeted therapies. At the same time, the paradox of obesity being a risk factor for RCC while offering a better overall survival in response to targeted therapy needs to be further evaluated.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Kidney Cancer and VHLSame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207