MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395076114 · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.0732

Analysis of Body Mass Index and Mortality in Patients With Colorectal Cancer Using Causal Diagrams

2016· article· en· W2395076114 on OpenAlexaff
Candyce H. Kroenke, Romain Neugebauer, Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, Carla M. Prado, Erin Weltzien, Marilyn L. Kwan, Jingjie Xiao, Bette J. Caan

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineUnderweightBody mass indexColorectal cancerPopulationHazard ratioRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineCancerCohort studySurgeryOverweightConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Physicians and investigators have sought to determine the relationship between body mass index (BMI [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared]) and colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes, but methodologic limitations including sampling selection bias, reverse causality, and collider bias have prevented the ability to draw definitive conclusions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of BMI at the time of, and following, colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis with mortality in a complete population using causal diagrams. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective observational study with prospectively collected data included a cohort of 3408 men and women, ages 18 to 80 years, from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California population, who were diagnosed with stage I to III CRC between 2006 and 2011 and who also had surgery. EXPOSURES: Body mass index at diagnosis and 15 months following diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality and CRC-specific mortality compared with normal-weight patients, adjusted for sociodemographics, disease severity, treatment, and prediagnosis BMI. RESULTS: This study investigated a cohort of 3408 men and women ages 18 to 80 years diagnosed with stage I to III CRC between 2006 and 2011 who also had surgery. At-diagnosis BMI was associated with all-cause mortality in a nonlinear fashion, with patients who were underweight (BMI <18.5; HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.63-4.31) and patients who were class II or III obese (BMI ≥35; HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.89-1.98) exhibiting elevated mortality risks, compared with patients who were low-normal weight (BMI 18.5 to <23). In contrast, patients who were high-normal weight (BMI 23 to <25; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56-1.06), low-overweight (BMI 25 to <28; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.55-1.04), and high-overweight (BMI 28 to <30; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35-0.77) had lower mortality risks, and patients who were class I obese (BMI 30 to <35) showed no difference in risk. Spline analysis confirmed a U-shaped relationship in participants with lowest mortality at a BMI of 28. Associations with CRC-specific mortality were similar. Associations of postdiagnosis BMI and mortality were also similar, but patients who were class I obese had significantly lower all-cause and cancer-specific mortality risks. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, body mass index at the time of diagnosis and following diagnosis of CRC was associated with mortality risk. Though evidence shows that exercise in patients with cancer should be encouraged, findings suggest that recommendations for weight loss in the immediate postdiagnosis period among patients with CRC who are overweight may be unwarranted.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.141
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.141
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0090.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 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

Citations184
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA OncologySame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207