MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P3-08-73: Muscle measures, body composition, and function in patients with early breast cancer

2020· article· en· W3013722198 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gabriel Aleixo, Allison M. Deal, Grant R. Williams, Hyman B. Muss, Kirsten A. Nyrop, Ji‐Hye Park, Hyeon Yu, Shlomit Strulov Shachar

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSarcopeniaBreast cancerSarcopenic obesitySkeletal muscleCancerLean body massBody mass indexInternal medicinePhysical therapyBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Sarcopenia and muscle composition are associated with treatment-related toxicities and adverse events in women with EBC (Shachar 2017). We investigated the relationship of muscle mass with other measures of body composition as well as comorbidities, physical function, fatigue, and quality of life. Methods: Women age 21 or older were enrolled in intervention studies (NCT02167932, NCT02328313) investigating home-based walking during chemotherapy for early breast cancer (stage I-III). Prior to the start of chemotherapy, patients completed the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. When available from staging, transverse views of computed tomography (CT) through L3 lumbar segments were analyzed using Slice-O-Matic software (Tomovision Quebec, Canada) to ascertain skeletal muscle area (SMA= -29 to +150 Hounsfield Units), skeletal muscle density (SMD= average attenuation of skeletal muscle in HU), skeletal muscle index (SMI= SMA/height2), and skeletal muscle gauge (SMG= SMI x SMD). 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 body composition, function and quality of life and continuous muscle measures. Pearson correlation coefficients were estimated to assess the relationship between muscle metrics. Results: In 99 patients, mean age was 56 (SD 13), BMI was 30 (SD 7), 47% were obese (≥30 kg/m2), and 54% had stage III breast cancer. Mean SMI was 45.3 (SD. 8.5), 26% were sarcopenic (SMI <40cm2/m2), mean SMD was 31.2 (SD 9.8), 77% had low SMD (HU <37.8), and mean SMG was 1413.8 (SD 71.2) [normal SMG is >1512 Arbitrary Units]. For each additional comorbidity, mean SMD decreased by 1.91 (p=.003), mean BSA increased by 0.035 (p=.02), and mean BMI increased by 1.31 (p=.005). Lower SMD and SMG were seen for patients with TUG >14 seconds (-5.70, p=.04 and -325.4, p=.02, respectively). The mean SMD increased by 1.22 (p=.02) for each additional point on the SPPB scale. For the correlation between BMI and muscle matrices, there was a strong positive correlation for SMI (+0.648 p<.0001) and a moderate negative correlation for SMD (-0.490 p<.0001). Between BSA and muscle matrices, there was a moderate positive correlation for SMI (+0.433 p<.0001), a strong negative correlation for SMD (-0.572 p <.0001), and a low negative correlation for SMG (-0.282 p=.004). Conclusion: Our study showed that sub-optimal muscle metrics, especially lower muscle mass and density, were correlated worse physical function in women with EBC. We also show that muscle metrics are associated with conventional measures of body composition. Citation Format: Gabriel F. P. Aleixo, Allison M Deal, Grant R Williams, Hyman B Muss, Kirsten A Nyrop, Ji Hye Park, Hyeon Yu, Shlomit S Shachar. Muscle measures, body composition, 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 P3-08-73.

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)0.001
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 Research→Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→