MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

American Cancer Society (ACS) Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines after colon cancer diagnosis and disease-free (DFS), recurrence-free (RFS), and overall survival (OS) in CALGB 89803 (Alliance).

2017· article· en· W2767597781 on OpenAlexaff
Erin Van Blarigan, Charles S. Fuchs, Donna Niedzwiecki, Xing Ye, Sui Zhang, Mingyang Song, Leonard B. Saltz, Robert J. Mayer, Rex B. Mowat, Renaud Whittom, Alexander Hantel, Al B. Benson, Daniel Atienza, Michael J. Messino, Hedy L. Kindler, Alan P. Venook, Shuji Ogino, Walter C. Willett, Edward L. Giovannucci, Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioColorectal cancerInternal medicineCancerConfidence intervalSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10006 Background: The ACS Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines for Cancer Survivors include: 1) healthy body weight; 2) physical activity; and 3) a diet high in vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. It is not known whether colon cancer patients who follow these guidelines have improved DFS, RFS, or OS. Methods: We conducted a prospective study among 992 stage III colon cancer patients enrolled in an adjuvant chemotherapy trial in 1999-2001. Lifestyle was assessed twice. We applied a score developed by McCullough ML et al. to quantify adherence to the ACS guidelines based on BMI; physical activity; and intake of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and red/processed meats (range: 0-6; higher = more healthy behaviors). Alcohol is included in the ACS guidelines for cancer prevention, but not cancer survivors; we tested the score without and with alcohol using McCullough et al.’s cut points: 0 pts = >1/d for women, >2/d for men; 1 pt = no alcohol; 2 pts = >0-1/d for women, >0-2/d for men. We estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for DFS, RFS, and OS adjusting for clinical, demographic, and lifestyle factors. Results: Over 7 y median follow-up, we observed 335 recurrences and 299 deaths (43 without recurrence). Compared to patients with 0-1 pt (262, 26%), patients with 5-6 pts (91, 9%) had 42% lower risk of death (HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.99; p-trend: 0.01) and a trend toward improved DFS (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.06; p-trend: 0.03). When including alcohol in the score, the adjusted HR’s comparing patients with 6-8 pts (162; 16%) to 0-2 pts (187; 91%) were: 0.49 for OS (95% CI: 0.32, 0.76; p-trend: 0.002), 0.58 for DFS (95% CI: 0.40, 0.84; p-trend: 0.01), and 0.64 for RFS (95% CI: 0.44, 0.94; p-trend: 0.05). Conclusions: Colon cancer patients with a healthy body weight who engaged in physical activity, ate a diet high in whole grains, vegetables, and fruits and low in red/processed meats, and drank moderate alcohol had longer DFS and OS than patients who did not engage in these behaviors. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180820, K07CA197077, R01CA118553, P50CA127003, R35CA197735. ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT00003835.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.256
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→