The Diet of Higher Insulinemic Potential Is Not Associated with Worse Survival in Patients with Stage III Colon Cancer (Alliance)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hyperinsulinemia is considered to be important in the development of colon cancer, but few studies have investigated the associations of hyperinsulinemia with colon cancer survival via dietary scores. METHODS: Empirical dietary index for hyperinsulinemia (EDIH) was derived to assess the insulinemic potential of daily diets reflecting the long-term insulin exposure, with higher (more positive) scores indicating higher insulinemic diets. We prospectively estimated the HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to investigate the association of EDIH with disease-free, recurrence-free, and overall survival among patients with stage III colon cancer (1999-2009) enrolled in a randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial (CALGB 89803). RESULTS: Of 1,024 patients (median follow-up: 7.3 years), 311 died, 350 had recurrences, and 394 had events for disease-free survival. Compared with patients in the lowest quintile of EDIH, the corresponding HRs of patients in the highest quintile for disease-free survival events, cancer recurrence, and overall mortality were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.56-1.15), 0.76 (95% CI, 0.51-1.11), and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.52-1.14). CONCLUSIONS: Higher EDIH was not associated with the risk of colon cancer recurrence or mortality in this population of patients with stage III colon cancer. IMPACT: EDIH, as a measure of dietary insulinemic potential, may be associated with colon cancer risk but not survival in patients with late-stage colon cancer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".