Relationship of prediagnostic body mass index with survival after colorectal cancer: Stage‐specific associations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher body mass index (BMI) is a well-established risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC), but is inconsistently associated with CRC survival. In 6 prospective studies participating in the Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO), 2,249 non-Hispanic white CRC cases were followed for a median 4.5 years after diagnosis, during which 777 died, 554 from CRC-related causes. Associations between prediagnosis BMI and survival (overall and CRC-specific) were evaluated using Cox regression models adjusted for age at diagnosis, sex, study and smoking status (current/former/never). The association between BMI category and CRC survival varied by cancer stage at diagnosis (I-IV) for both all-cause (p-interaction = 0.03) and CRC-specific mortality (p-interaction = 0.04). Compared to normal BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m(2) ), overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9) was associated with increased mortality among those with Stage I disease, and decreased mortality among those with Stages II-IV disease. Similarly, obesity (BMI ≥30) was associated with increased mortality among those with Stages I-II disease, and decreased mortality among those with Stages III-IV disease. These results suggest the relationship between BMI and survival after CRC diagnosis differs by stage at diagnosis, and may emphasize the importance of adequate metabolic reserves for colorectal cancer survival in patients with late-stage disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".