A retrospective study on the role of diabetes and metformin in colorectal cancer disease progression.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1593 Background: Recent studies have suggested a potential epidemiological role for diabetes as an independent risk factor for the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). These studies have furthermore suggested patients with diabetes who develop colorectal cancer have an increased mortality. Methods: To identify a potential correlation between CRC and diabetes, we are performing a retrospective chart review of CRC patients treated at the Cancer Center of Southeastern Ontario diagnosed from January 2005 to December 2011. 1,300 colorectal cancer patient charts have been identified through Ontario Cancer Registry Data based on confirmed ICD-10 diagnosis codes and the variables of 200 random patients have been extracted into our database thus far. The final analysis will be completed April 2013. Results: Preliminary analysis of the database has indicated that the average age of patients with CRC was 69 years with 55% being women. The incidence of diabetes in our CRC population was 19%, double the rate of diabetes in the general population in Canada. As expected, the rate of co-morbidities excluding diabetes was higher in the diabetic group (92.9% vs 69.3%; p=0.004). When we looked at the diabetic population specifically, the rate of death was not significantly different compared to the non-diabetic population (13.2% vs 12.7%, p=0.94), however those with diabetes presented with later-stage (stage 2/3/4) disease (92.1% versus 88.6%). The average number of days from the time of diagnosis to death in the diabetic group (200 days) was half compared to the non-diabetic group (420 days, p=0.014). However, there was no statistical difference in the percentage of progression, number of different metastatic sites or the burden of metastatic disease amongst the two populations. A subgroup analysis of diabetic patients on metformin illustrated that the death rate (p=0.06), rate of progression (33% vs 20%) and those presenting with later stage disease was higher in patients not on metformin compared to those on the drug. Conclusions: Our preliminary work suggests diabetics with CRC may have a worst prognosis however taking metformin may have a positive impact on prognosis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".