MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does ethnicity affect the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and overall survival (OS) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)? A pooled analysis of 17,326 International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO) patients (pts).

2019· article· en· W2947804460 on OpenAlexaff
Aline Fusco Fares, Daniel Shepshelovich, Lu Lin, M. Catherine Brown, Ping Yang, Jie Zhang, Bríd M. Ryan, David C. Christiani, Ann G. Schwartz, Chu Chen, Garcia Adonina, Matthew B. Schabath, Kouya Shiraishi, Teare Down, Loı̈c Le Marchand, Zhang Zuo-feng, Hermann Brenner, Wei Xu, Geoffrey Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Lipids, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai HospitalOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUnderweightInternal medicineOverweightBody mass indexLung cancerHazard ratioProportional hazards modelOncologyGastroenterologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1562 Background: In Caucasian-predominant populations, overweight or obese NSCLC pts (BMI≥25-kg/m2) have better prognosis while underweight (BMI≤18.5-kg/m2) pts have a worse prognosis. A large pooled sample allowed us to evaluate the role of ethnicity in this BMI-NSCLC OS relationship. Methods: Using individual data, survival analysis was performed on 15 ILCCO studies, assessing the interactions between ethnicity and BMI on overall survival (OS). Adjusted Hazard Ratios (aHR) from Cox models and adjusted penalized smoothing spline plots were generated. Results: Among 13416 (77%) Caucasian, 2975 (17%) Asian, and 935 (5%) Black NSCLC pts analyzed, we confirmed that for all pts, being underweight at NSCLC diagnosis was associated with worse OS (aHR=1.68, CI 1.5-1.8, p<0.001), while overweight/obese pts had improved survival (aHR 0.89, CI 0.8-0.9, p<0.001), when compared to pts with normal BMI. In general, Black pts had poorer OS than Caucasian pts (aHR 1.26 CI 1.1-1.4, p<0.001). However, the BMI-OS relationship differed according to ethnicity (BMI-ethnicity interaction, p=0.009): Caucasian underweight pts had poorer OS (aHR 1.67, CI 1.5-1.8, P<0.001) while overweight/obese pts had improved OS (aHR 0.89, CI 0.8-0.9, P<0.001). In Asian pts, these two associations were aHR 1.15, CI 0.8-1.5, P=0.33, and aHR 0.91, CI 0.7-1.1, P=0.32, respectively. In Black pts, these two associations were aHR 1.06, CI 0.7-1.5, p=0.73 and 0.75, CI 0.6-0.8 p<0.001, respectively. For overweight/obese patients, as BMI rises from 25-kg/m2 through 45-kg/m2, the prognosis worsens for Caucasian pts, remains stable for Asian pts, but improves for Black pts. Conclusions: InCaucasian pts, being underweight had a greater negative impact on OS than for Asian or Black pts, while being obese had a greater beneficial impact in Blacks than in other ethnic groups. These ethnic differences likely reflect genetically-informed muscle/adipose tissue distributions, where Black pts may have less sarcopenic obesity than other ethnicities. In future prognostic studies, BMI relationships must account for ethnic differences.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer, Lipids, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207