Asian Americans have better outcomes of non-metastatic gastric cancer compared to other United States racial groups: A secondary analysis from a randomized study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: patients living in Western countries. It is not clear if these differences would persist between patients of Asian ancestry and patients of other racial subgroups within the multiethnic communities of North America. The current study hypothesizes that these differences will present within North American multiethnic communities. AIM: To evaluate the impact of race on survival outcomes of non-metastatic gastric cancer patients in the United States. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial (CALGB 80101 study) that evaluated two adjuvant chemoradiotherapy schedules following resection of non-metastatic gastric cancer. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank testing were utilized to explore the overall and disease-free survival differences according to the race of the patients. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were then used to explore factors affecting overall and disease-free survivals. RESULTS: = 0.002; respectively). CONCLUSION: Asian American patients with non-metastatic gastric cancer have better overall and disease-free survival compared to other racial groups in the United States. Further preclinical and clinical research is needed to clarify the reasons behind this observation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".