Body Mass Index, Diet-Related Factors, and Bladder Cancer Prognosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urologists are frequently confronted with questions of urinary bladder cancer (UBC) patients about what they can do to improve their prognosis. Unfortunately, it is largely unknown which lifestyle factors can influence prognosis. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the available evidence on the association between body mass index (BMI), diet, dietary supplements, and physical activity and UBC prognosis. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase up to May 2017. We included thirty-one articles reporting on observational and randomized controlled trials investigating BMI, diet and dietary supplements in relation to recurrence, progression, cancer-specific or all-cause mortality in UBC patients. RESULTS: = 79%) were associated with increased risk of recurrence when compared to normal weight. No association of BMI with risk of progression was found. Results for BMI and prognosis in muscle-invasive or in all stages series were inconsistent. Observational studies on diet and randomized controlled trials with dietary supplements showed inconsistent results. No studies on physical activity and UBC prognosis have been published to date. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for an association of lifestyle factors with UBC prognosis is limited, with some evidence for an association of BMI with risk of recurrence in NMIBC. Well-designed, prospective studies are needed to develop evidence-based guidelines on this topic.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".