MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract CN05-03: Energy balance in cancer patients: Are we ready to intervene?

2010· article· en· W2334545808 on OpenAlexaff
Pamela J. Goodwin

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Prevention Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerOverweightInternal medicineCancerColorectal cancerOncologyInsulinInsulin resistanceObesityEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is growing evidence that aspects of energy balance, including overweight/obesity and physical inactivity are associated with poor outcomes in some cancers, notably breast and colorectal. In breast cancer, evidence is strongest for overweight/obesity; recent evidence suggests physical activity may have important independent associations with outcomes. In colorectal cancer, evidence is strongest for physical activity. Clinical mechanisms that have been postulated for these associations include presentation of cancer at a more advanced stage or receipt of less than optimal therapy in overweight or obese individuals. Potential biologic mechanisms have included sex hormones, insulin and related IGFs, adipocytokines and inflammatory markers. In breast cancer there is growing evidence that insulin (and associated insulin resistance) may play a key role in mediating these prognostic associations - high insulin levels have been associated with increased risk of breast cancer recurrence or death. Breast cancer cells commonly overexpress insulin receptors (frequently a fetal form of the receptor that may hybridize with the IGF-1 receptor) that are not downregulated by circulating insulin; as a result, cancer cell growth may be stimulated by high circulating insulin levels. Observational clinical studies linking energy balance to prognosis of breast and colorectal cancer will be reviewed, along with early intervention work demonstrating the feasibility, short-term benefits (e.g. on QOL) and biologic (mechanistic) changes associated with lifestyle interventions in breast and colon cancer survivors. The impact of the available evidence on clinical practice and the role of large scale clinical trials of energy balance modification with recurrence or survival endpoints (completed, ongoing and planned) will be reviewed, with an emphasis on issues relating to feasibility, cost and the need for embedded correlative research to investigate biologic mechanisms for any survival effects that are identified. Related metformin trials (which target insulin and AMPK/mTOR signaling), notably NCIC MA.32, an adjuvant trial in early breast cancer that will be activated early in 2010, will also be reviewed. Citation Information: Cancer Prev Res 2010;3(1 Suppl):CN05-03.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.358 · 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.

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Prevention ResearchSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207