Systematic review on socioeconomic deprivation and survival in endometrial cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary objectives in this review were to (1) assess the association between socioeconomic deprivation and survival in endometrial cancer patients (2) investigate if there is an association between socioeconomic deprivation and peri-operative morbidity in endometrial cancer patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic review using Medline (1946-2018), Embase (1980-2018), Cinahl (1981-2018) and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials to identify studies that reported on the association between socioeconomic deprivation and survival or peri-operative outcomes in endometrial cancer patients. Included were adult women (age ≥ 18 years) diagnosed with primary endometrial cancer. Two reviewers independently selected studies and assessed bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale. Data extraction was completed using pre-determined forms, and summary tables of evidences from the included studies were created. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in this review with a total number of 369,900 patients. Eight studies investigated survival and socioeconomic deprivation, and the majority showed that socioeconomic deprivation is associated with poorer survival in endometrial cancer patients. One study assessed the association between deprivation and peri-operative morbidity and found no difference in 30-day postoperative mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic deprivation seems to be associated with worse survival in endometrial cancer patients, even after adjusting for stage at diagnosis. However, the impacts of important confounders such as BMI, smoking and comorbidities are unclear and should be assessed. The relationship between socioeconomic deprivation and peri-operative morbidity is unclear, and further research is needed to evaluate this aspect. A standardised measure for socioeconomic deprivation is needed in order to establish adequate comparison between studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".