A Retrospective Study on the Role of Diabetes and Metformin in Colorectal Cancer Disease Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested an effect of metformin on mortality for patients with both diabetes and colorectal cancer (crc). However, the literature is contradictory, with both positive and negative effects being identified. We set out to determine the effect of metformin with respect to prognosis in crc patients. METHODS: After a retrospective chart review of crc patients treated at the Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare overall survival (os) in patients with and without diabetes. RESULTS: We identified 1304 crc patients treated at the centre. No significant differences between the diabetic and nondiabetic groups were observed with respect to tumour pathology, extent of metastatic disease, time or toxicity of chemotherapy, and the os rate (1-year os: 85.6% vs. 86.4%, p = 0.695; 2-year os: 73.6% vs. 77.0%, p = 0.265). In subgroup analysis, diabetic patients taking metformin survived significantly longer than their counterparts taking other diabetes treatments (os for the metformin group: 91% at 1 year; 80.5% at 2 years; os for the group taking other treatments, including diet control: 80.6% at 1 year, 67.4% at 2 years). Multivariate analysis suggests that patients with diabetes taking treatments other than metformin experience worse survival (p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that crc patients with diabetes, excluding those taking metformin, might have a worse crc prognosis. Taking metformin appears to have a positive association with prognosis. The protective nature of metformin needs further evaluation in prospective analyses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".