MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P3-08-48: Adiposity, comorbidities, and function in patients with early breast cancer

2020· article· en· W3005918636 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gabriel Aleixo, Allison M. Deal, Shlomit Strulov Shachar, Hyman B. Muss, Kirsten A. Nyrop, Ji‐Hye Park, Hyeon Yu, Grant R. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerAdipose tissueBody mass indexCancerInternal medicineChemotherapyBody surface area

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Visceral adipose tissue (VAT) is correlated with lower overall survival and higher chemotherapy toxicity in women with breast cancer (Del Fabbro 2012, Feliciano 2019). In a sample of women scheduled for chemotherapy for early breast cancer (EBC) (stage I-III), we evaluate whether VAT or superficial adipose tissue (SAT) are associated with comorbidities, function, and clinically-used body metrics, Body Mass Index (BMI) and Body Surface Area (BSA).Methods: Women age 21 or older were enrolled in intervention studies (NCT02167932, NCT02328313) to encourage home-based walking during chemotherapy for EBC. Prior to chemotherapy initiation, patients had abdominal computerized tomography (CT) scans and completed Timed Up and Go (TUG) and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) tests. Axial CT images were evaluated at the L3 level using Slice-O-Matic software (Tomovision Quebec, Canada). Superficial adipose tissue(SAT) was calculated from extra-muscular tissue with densities ranging from -190 to -30 Hounsfield Units (HU). Visceral adipose tissue (VAT) was calculated from non-subcutaneous tissue with densities from -150 to -50 HU, with values in cm2. BSA and BMI were calculated using standard formulas. Descriptive statistics(mean and standard deviation (SD)) were estimated and simple linear regression models were used to evaluate associations of comorbidities, function, and clinically-used body metrics and continuous adiposity measures. Pearson correlation coefficients were estimated to assess the relationship between adiposity measures.Results: In a sample of 99 women, mean age was56 (SD 13.1), BMI was 30 (SD 7), 47% were obese (≥30 kg/m2), and mean number of comorbidities was1.3 (SD 1.5).The mean VAT was 113.9 (SD 71.2), 50% had high VAT (>100 cm2), and the mean SAT was 294.2 (SD 71.2). For each additional comorbidity, mean VAT increased by 16.68, and SAT increased by 21.6. Both arthritis and high blood pressure were associated with higher VAT (+67.2 p<.0001 and +67.3 p<.0001, respectively) and higher SAT (+94.3 p=.002 and +104.3 p=.0008, respectively). Peripheral vascular disease and emphysema/chronic bronchitis were associated with higher VAT (+57.7 p=.01 and +100.8 p=.02, respectively), but not higher SAT. Higher VAT was seen for patients with TUG >14 seconds +57.87 (p=.004). For each additional point on the SPPB scale, the mean VAT decreased by 12.14(p=.002). For each additional comorbidity, BSA increased 0.035(p=.004) and BMI increased 1.31(p=.003). Strong positive correlations with VAT were seen for BSA (.697 p<.001), BMI (0.681 p<.001) and SAT (0.636 p<0001), as well as SAT with BSA (0.813 p<.0001) and BMI (.855 p<.0001). Conclusion: Comorbidities, function and commonly-used body metrics (BSA, BMI) are associated with adiposity metrics (VAT, SAT). All of these body composition metrics are associated with measures of function. Citation Format: Gabriel F. P. Aleixo, Allison M Deal, Shlomit S Shachar, Hyman B Muss, Kirsten A Nyrop, Ji Hye Park, Hyeon Yu, Grant R Williams. Adiposity, comorbidities, and function in patients with early breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-08-48.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207