Long‐term weight loss after colorectal cancer diagnosis is associated with lower survival: The Colon Cancer Family Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Body weight is associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and survival, but to the authors' knowledge, the impact of long-term postdiagnostic weight change is unclear. Herein, the authors investigated whether weight change over the 5 years after a diagnosis of CRC is associated with survival. METHODS: CRC cases diagnosed from 1997 to 2008 were identified through 4 population-based cancer registry sites. Participants enrolled within 2 years of diagnosis and reported their height and weight 2 years prior. Follow-up questionnaires were administered approximately 5 years after diagnosis. Associations between change in weight (in kg) or body mass index (BMI) with overall and CRC-specific survival were estimated using Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage of disease, baseline BMI, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, smoking, time between diagnosis and enrollment, and study site. RESULTS: At the 5-year postdiagnostic survey, 2049 participants reported higher (53%; median plus 5 kg), unchanged (12%), or lower (35%; median -4 kg) weight. Over a median of 5.1 years of subsequent follow-up (range, 0.3-9.9 years), 344 participants died (91 of CRC). Long-term weight loss (per 5 kg) was found to be associated with poorer overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.21) and CRC-specific survival (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.39). Significantly lower survival was similarly observed for relative weight loss (>5% vs ≤5% change), BMI reduction (per 1 unit), or BMI category change (overweight to normal vs remaining overweight). CONCLUSIONS: Weight loss 5 years after a diagnosis of CRC was found to be significantly associated with decreased long-term survival, suggesting the importance of avoiding weight loss in survivors of CRC. Future research should attempt to further evaluate this association, accounting for whether this weight change was intentional or represents a marker of declining health. Cancer 2017;123:4701-4708. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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".