MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Early adulthood body mass index, cumulative smoking, and esophageal adenocarcinoma survival.

2014· article· en· W2591530513 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anna Spreafico, Linda Coate, Xiaowei Shen, Rihong Zhai, Wei Xu, Zhen-Fei Chen, Zhuo Chen, Devalben Patel, Catherine Brown, Qin Kuang, Kevin Boyd, Matthew Kulke, Li Su, Helen Mackay, Jennifer J. Knox, Rebecca Wong, Gail Darling, David C. Christiani, Geoffrey Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexInternal medicineUnderweightProportional hazards modelHazard ratioGastroenterologyAdenocarcinomaCumulative incidenceObesitySurvival analysisStage (stratigraphy)CancerCohortOverweightConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10 Background: Little is known about the individual and combined effect of early-adulthood obesity and cumulative smoking on the survival of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) patients. Methods: We analyzed two independent cohorts of EAC patients: 235 patients from Toronto, Canada (TO, 2006-2011) and 329 patients from Boston, USA (BO,1999-2004). Associations between early adulthood body mass index (EA-BMI) and smoking with overall survival (OS) were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for stage, treatment, and other relevant covariates. Results: Median age (range) for TO dataset was 64(29-88)yrs; for BO dataset, 64(21-91)yrs. Males comprised 86% of TO and 89% of BO datasets. 90% of TO and 98% of BO patients were Caucasians. The Median (range) for packyears was 34 (0.2-118; TO) and 34 (0.2-212; BO). The Median (range) for EA-BMI was 24(15-44; TO) and 24(15-47; BO). Median BMI 1 yr prior to diagnosis was 25(16-43; TO) and 25(20-49; BO). 92% of TO and 88% of BO patients had ECOG 0 or 1. Disease stage distribution (early/locally-advanced/metastatic) was 11%/64%/25% (TO) and 30%/52%/18% (BO). For TO, the aHR for smoking was 1.03 (95%CI: 1.02-1.04; p=8E-08) per packyear, while for BO, smoking also independently conferred worse OS, with aHR of 1.007 (95%CI: 1.002-1.01; p=0.003) for each packyear increase. The aHRs for being underweight (EA-BMI<18.5), overweight (EA-BMI 25-30), and obese (EA-BMI>30) in early adulthood were 2.19 (95%CI: 1.0-4.6), 1.89 (95%CI:1.2-3.0), and 2.49 (95%CI:1.5-4.2), respectively for the TO dataset (global p=0.003 for EA-BMI). In BO, the corresponding values were 1.30 (95%CI: 0.8-2.2), 1.45 (95%CI: 1.0-2.5), and 2.39 (95%CI:1.5-3.8), respectively (global p=0.002). In contrast, BMI at one year prior to diagnosis had no association with OS in either study. Conclusions: Elevated BMI in early adulthood and heavy cumulative smoking history are independently associated with increased mortality risk in two North American EAC populations. These survival differences may reflect comorbidity differences, biological differences or both, and offer insight into how key modifiable behaviors in prevention can also affect cancer prognoses. AS, LC, DCC and GL contributed equally.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.367 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment→French-language works237,207→