MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Muscle wasting, visceral and subcutaneous adiposity, inflammation, nutritional deficiencies, and metastatic esophageal cancer (MEC) prognosis.

2019· article· en· W2946910439 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jaspreet Bajwa, Aline Fusco Fares, George Dong, Daniel Vilarim Araújo, Katrina Hueniken, Devalben Patel, Kirsty Taylor, Gail Darling, Rebecca Wong, Eric Xueyu Chen, Jennifer J. Knox, Raymond Woo-Jun Jang, Elena Elimova, Wei Xu, Geoffrey Liu, Dmitry Rozenberg, Micheal McInnis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSarcopeniaInternal medicineCachexiaWastingHazard ratioProportional hazards modelCancerBody mass indexSkeletal muscleGastroenterologyAdipose tissueOncologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e14595 Background: MEC, associated with fatigue and dysphagia, leads to loss of skeletal muscle mass, malnutrition, subcutaneous and visceral adiposity. Cancer inflammation mobilizes muscle and adipose tissue, potentially leading to cachexia and sarcopenia. Supportive management depends on understanding the cancer frailty determinants that lead to poor outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively identified de novo MEC patients pts treated in Toronto, Canada (2007-2014). Body composition including visceral (VA) and subcutaneous adiposity (SA) at L3 level were assessed with baseline CT scans using SliceOMatic software by two outcome-blinded radiologists (Intraclass correlation, 0.92-1.00). Sarcopenia was assessed using Skeletal Muscle Index (SMI) with cut-offs defined either by optimized-stratification (OpS) or gender-dependent consensus cutoffs (GdC). Cox proportional hazard models generated adjusted hazard ratios (aHR). Results: Of 101 patients, 82% were male; 96% Caucasian; median age at diagnosis 61y (29-88); mean body mass index (BMI) 25.4; 69%/31% adeno/squamous cell carcinoma; median overall and progression free survival were: 6.4 (OS) and 3.9 mos (PFS). Median follow-up time was 5.6 mos. SMI-OpS and SMI-GdC were correlated (Rho = 0.67). Nutritional risk index, BMI, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte and neutrophil-to-platelet ratios were not associated with outcome (p > 0.20, each comparison). However, univariable analyses identified serum albumin, LDH, and either SMI-OpS or SMI-GdC as being associated with OS. In multivariable models, sarcopenia was associated with worse OS (SMI-OpS aHR = 1.93 (1.0-3.7) p = 0.046; SMI-GdC aHR = 2.30 (1.3-4.1) p = 0.004), and worse PFS (SMI-OpS aHR = 2.16 (1.2-4.0) p = 0.01; SMI-GdC aHR = 1.66 (1.0-2.9) p = 0.07)). In 55 pts receiving chemotherapy at diagnosis, less VA (p = 0.01) and SA (p = 0.02), as continuous variables, were associated with worse OS. Conclusions: Though no associations were found between nutritional deficiencies or inflammatory markers and prognosis, there was approximately a two-fold worse prognosis in the presence of sarcopenia, and associations with loss of adiposity. (JB/AFF/DR/MM contributed equally).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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