An Elevated HbA1c Level Is Associated With Short-Term Adverse Outcomes in Patients With Gastrointestinal Cancer and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although an elevated hemoglobin A1c (HbAc1) level is an independent predictor of worse survival in patients with both digestive cancer and diabetes mellitus, its relationship to short-term prognosis in these patients has not been addressed. This study assessed this relationship in gastrointestinal cancer (GIC) patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with GIC with or without T2DM from 2004 to 2014 was performed. Patients with T2DM were grouped according to HbA1c level, either normal (mean < 7.0%) or elevated (mean ≥ 7.0%). Age- and sex-matched GIC patients without T2DM served as controls. RESULTS: One hundred and eighteen patients aged 33 - 81 years with T2DM met the study eligibility criteria; 51 were in the normal HbA1c group, and 67 were in the elevated HbA1c group. The 91 patients in the non-T2DM group were randomly selected and matched to the T2DM group in terms of admittance date, age, and sex. There was a trend toward a higher 180-day mortality rate in the T2DM group compared with the non-T2DM group (15.3% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.095) and in the elevated HbA1c group compared with the normal HbA1c group (19.4% vs. 9.8%, P = 0.151); however, the differences were not significant. The duration of the hospital stay was longer in patients with T2DM than in those without T2DM (13.2 vs. 8.9 days, P < 0.05) and in patients with elevated versus normal HbA1c levels (14.5 vs. 11.4 days, P < 0.05). Diabetic GIC patients with elevated HbA1c levels had significantly more total postoperative complications than those with normal HbA1c levels (25.4% vs. 9.8%, P < 0.05). In multivariate regression analyses, short-term adverse outcomes were strongly associated with elevated HbA1c levels (odds ratio (OR): 5.276; 95% confidence level (CI): 1.73 - 16.095; P < 0.05) and no strict antidiabetic treatment (OR: 7.65; 95% CI: 2.49 - 23.54; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: An elevated level of HbA1c significantly correlated with and was an independent predictor of short-term adverse outcomes in GIC patients with T2DM.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".