Body mass index and prognosis in patients with head and neck cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Body mass index (BMI) has been associated variably with head and neck cancer outcomes. We evaluated the association between BMI at either diagnosis or at early adulthood head and neck cancer outcomes. METHODS: Patients with invasive head and neck squamous cell cancer at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada, were surveyed on tobacco and alcohol exposure, performance status, comorbidities, and BMI at diagnosis. A subset also had data collected for BMI at early adulthood. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 2.5 years, in 1279 analyzed patients, being overweight (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-0.8; p = .001) at diagnosis was associated with improved survival when compared with individuals with normal weight. In contrast, underweight patients at diagnosis were associated with a worse outcome (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.2-3.1; p < .01). CONCLUSION: Being underweight at diagnosis was an independent, adverse prognostic factor, whereas being overweight conferred better prognosis. BMI in early adulthood was not associated strongly with head and neck cancer outcomes. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 39: 1226-1233, 2017.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".