Predicting the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in early colon cancer (CC) patients (pts) treated with adjuvant chemotherapy: Developing a GI toxicity scoring system.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
420 Background: Baseline demographics and clinical factors may contribute to a pt’s overall risk for developing chemotherapy-related GI toxicity, such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. We aimed to develop a GI toxicity scoring system to better stratify early CC pts who may be at higher risk of developing GI toxicity from adjuvant FOLFOX chemotherapy. Methods: Pts diagnosed with early CC from 2005 to 2008 and treated with FOLFOX at the British Columbia Cancer Agency were reviewed. GI toxicities of interest included (1) nausea/vomiting, (2) diarrhea, and (3) any GI side effects. Baseline variables that were analyzed consisted of age, sex, ECOG, time to adjuvant chemotherapy (TTAC), and laboratory parameters. Stepwise regression was used to develop a multivariate model for each toxicity and a weighted risk scoring system was subsequently devised based on the magnitude of the parameter estimates in the multivariate model. Results: In total, 475 pts were included: median age was 62 years (range 26-89), 16.2% were aged >70 years, and 54.5% were men. The majority (90.1%) was ECOG 0/1. Independent predictors for nausea/vomiting included age >70 years (OR 2.46, 95%CI 1.3-4.8, p=0.011), GFR <50 (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.1-2.7, p=0.025), and TTAC >8 weeks (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.9-2.1, p=0.14) whereas independent predictors for diarrhea included age >70 years (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.79-2.62, p=0.12) and GFR <50 (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.1-2.6, p=0.018). The multivariate model for the risk of any GI toxicity included age >70 years (OR: 2.61, 95% CI 1.1-6.1, p=0.049), GFR <50 (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.1-2.6, p=0.0038), and TTAC >8 weeks (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.2-2.7, p=0.0059). Points were assigned: 2 points for long TTAC and poor GFR and 1 point for advanced age. The study cohort was classified into their risk groups based on their score (Table). Conclusions: We developed a simple 5-point scoring system to stratify early CC pts receiving adjuvant FOLFOX into low and high risk groups for GI toxicity based on baseline clinical factors. Further validation of this scoring system is required. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".