MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of obesity on presentation of colorectal cancer

2005· article· en· W2590652784 on OpenAlexaff
Lori Wood, Karen Inglis, Paul J. Veugelers, Jennifer L. Murdoch, Paul M. Johnson, Geoffrey A. Porter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexColorectal cancerUnderweightOverweightCancerObesityInternal medicineCohortProspective cohort studyIncidence (geometry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3645 Background: Obesity has been shown to be associated with reduced survival in patients with colorectal cancer, although mechanisms for this finding are unclear. We hypothesized that, at least in part, this may be due to obesity-associated differences in presentation. Thus, the objective of this study was to examine the impact of obesity on the presentation and pathologic staging of colorectal cancer. Methods: From 02/15/2002 to 02/15/2004, all patients undergoing surgery for primary colorectal cancer at two institutions were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Body mass index (BMI) was measured at the time of hospital admission for surgery. National Institutes of Health criteria were used to categorize patients: normal/underweight (NW; 18.4 < BMI < 25 kg/m2), overweight (OW; BMI = 25–29.9 kg/m2), obese (OB; BMI = 30–39.9 kg/m2) and severely obese (SOB; BMI> 40 kg/m2). Presentation and pathologic factors were then compared among the groups. Results: The study cohort consisted of 448 patients; 125 (27.9%) were NW, 172 (38.4%) were OW, 127 (28.3%) were OB, and 24 (5.4%) were SOB. No significant differences in age, gender, ethnicity, or tumor grade were found between weight groups. Most patients (90.8%) presented with symptomatic disease; the use of colorectal cancer screening was similar among all weight groups. Among symptomatic patients, bleeding/anemia as the first presenting symptom was significantly associated with increasing BMI (see table). SOB patients were found to have a significantly increased incidence of lymph node metastases, whereas NW patients were more likely to present with metastatic disease (see table). Conclusions: This study identified several obesity-related differences in presentation of colorectal cancer. An obesity-associated increased incidence of node metastases was seen only in the small proportion of obese patients who are SOB. The increased incidence of metastatic disease at presentation among NW patients may reflect disease-related weight loss. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.423 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207