MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2959526451 · doi:10.1002/jcsm.12466

Clinical and biological characterization of skeletal muscle tissue biopsies of surgical cancer patients

2019· article· en· W2959526451 on OpenAlexafffund
Ana Anoveros‐Barrera, Amritpal S. Bhullar, Cynthia Stretch, Nina Esfandiari, Abha R. Dunichand‐Hoedl, Karen J. B. Martins, David L. Bigam, Rachel G. Khadaroo, Todd McMullen, Oliver F. Bathe, Sambasivarao Damaraju, Richard J.E. Skipworth, Charles T. Putman, Vickie E. Baracos, Vera C. Mazurak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsMedicineBiopsyMuscle biopsyCancerPopulationCohortSkeletal musclePathologyRadiologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Researchers increasingly use intraoperative muscle biopsy to investigate mechanisms of skeletal muscle atrophy in patients with cancer. Muscles have been assessed for morphological, cellular, and biochemical features. The aim of this study was to conduct a state‐of‐the‐science review of this literature and, secondly, to evaluate clinical and biological variation in biopsies of rectus abdominis (RA) muscle from a cohort of patients with malignancies. Methods Literature was searched for reports on muscle biopsies from patients with a cancer diagnosis. Quality of reports and risk of bias were assessed. Data abstracted included patient characteristics and diagnoses, sample size, tissue collection and biobanking procedures, and results. A cohort of cancer patients (n = 190, 88% gastrointestinal malignancies), who underwent open abdominal surgery as part of their clinical care, consented to RA biopsy from the site of incision. Computed tomography (CT) scans were used to quantify total abdominal muscle and RA cross‐sectional areas and radiodensity. Biopsies were assessed for muscle fibre area (μm2), fibre types, myosin heavy chain isoforms, and expression of genes selected for their involvement in catabolic pathways of muscle. Results Muscle biopsy occurred in 59 studies (total N = 1585 participants). RA was biopsied intraoperatively in 40 studies (67%), followed by quadriceps (26%; percutaneous biopsy) and other muscles (7%). Cancer site and stage, % of male participants, and age were highly variable between studies. Details regarding patient medical history and biopsy procedures were frequently absent. Lack of description of the population(s) sampled and low sample size contributed to low quality and risk of bias. Weight‐losing cases were compared with weight stable cancer or healthy controls without considering a measure of muscle mass in 21 out of 44 studies. In the cohort of patients providing biopsy for this study, 78% of patients had preoperative CT scans and a high proportion (64%) met published criteria for sarcopenia. Fibre type distribution in RA was type I (46% ± 13), hybrid type I/IIA (1% ± 1), type IIA (36% ± 10), hybrid type IIA/D (15% ± 14), and type IID (2% ± 5). Sexual dimorphism was prominent in RA CT cross‐sectional area, mean fibre cross‐sectional area, and in expression of genes associated with muscle growth, apoptosis, and inflammation (P < 0.05). Medical history revealed multiple co‐morbid conditions and medications. Conclusions Continued collaboration between researchers and cancer surgeons enables a more complete understanding of mechanisms of cancer‐associated muscle atrophy. Standardization of biobanking practices, tissue manipulation, patient characterization, and classification will enhance the consistency, reliability, and comparability of future 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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations38
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and MuscleSame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207