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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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)0.0000.000

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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