Relationship between metformin use and recurrence and survival in patients (pts) with resected stage III colon cancer (CC) receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: Results from NCCTG N0147 (Alliance).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3531 Background: Although preclinical and epidemiological data suggest that metformin may have antineoplastic properties in CC, the impact of metformin use on pt survival in stage III CC undergoing curative resection is unknown. Methods: Before randomization to FOLFOX +/- cetuximab, 1958 stage III CC pts enrolled on N0147 study completed a questionnaire that included information on diabetes mellitus (DM) and metformin use. Cox models assessed the association between metformin use and outcomes of disease free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and time to recurrence (TTR), adjusting for clinical/pathological factors. Results: 1691 (86%), 115 (6%) and 152 (8%) of 1958 pts reported no history of DM, DM with metformin use, or DM with no metformin use, respectively. The two treatment arms were pooled since metformin use showed homogeneous effects on outcomes across arms. There was no difference in DFS, OS and TTR irrespective of metformin use when DM pts were compared to non-DM pts, after adjusting for tumor/pt factors (Table). Within the cohort of DM pts (n = 267), DFS (HR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.59-1.35; p = 0.595), OS (HR = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.65-1.49; p = 0.948) and TTR (HR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.56-1.35; p = 0.534) were similar in metformin users compared to non-users. Survival outcomes were comparable regardless of duration of metformin use ( < 1, 1-5, 6-10, 11+ years) before randomization (p = 0.361 for DFS; p = 0.068 for OS). There were no interaction effects observed between metformin use and clinical/pathological factors (KRAS, BRAF mutation status, tumor site, T/N stage, gender, and age). Conclusions: Stage III CC patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy who used metformin experienced similar DFS, OS, or TTR compared to non-DM pts or DM pts without metformin use. Group DFS OS TTR HR (95% CI) p value HR (95% CI) p value HR (95% CI) p value Non-DM Ref Ref Ref DM, metformin use 0.95 (0.67-1.36) 0.796 1.17 (0.82-1.67) 0.383 0.91 (0.62-1.33) 0.616 DM, no metformin use 1.15 (0.86-1.54) 0.361 1.26 (0.93-1.72) 0.138 1.14 (0.84-1.57) 0.401
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".