History of Comorbidities and Survival of Ovarian Cancer Patients, Results from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Comorbidities can affect survival of ovarian cancer patients by influencing treatment efficacy. However, little evidence exists on the association between individual concurrent comorbidities and prognosis in ovarian cancer patients. Methods: Among patients diagnosed with invasive ovarian carcinoma who participated in 23 studies included in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium, we explored associations between histories of endometriosis; asthma; depression; osteoporosis; and autoimmune, gallbladder, kidney, liver, and neurological diseases and overall and progression-free survival. Using Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for age at diagnosis, stage of disease, histology, and study site, we estimated pooled HRs and 95% confidence intervals to assess associations between each comorbidity and ovarian cancer outcomes. Results: None of the comorbidities were associated with ovarian cancer outcome in the overall sample nor in strata defined by histologic subtype, weight status, age at diagnosis, or stage of disease (local/regional vs. advanced). Conclusions: Histories of endometriosis; asthma; depression; osteoporosis; and autoimmune, gallbladder, kidney, liver, or neurologic diseases were not associated with ovarian cancer overall or progression-free survival. Impact: These previously diagnosed chronic diseases do not appear to affect ovarian cancer prognosis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(9); 1470–3. ©2017 AACR.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".