MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prognostic impact of obesity in cancer patients with COVID-19 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2021· review· en· W3171153388 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robin Park, Elizabeth Wulff‐Burchfield, Kathan Mehta, Weijing Sun, Anup Kasi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisPublication biasOdds ratioObesityFunnel plotConfidence intervalInternal medicinePopulationCancerEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e18578 Background: Obesity is a bona fide risk factor for ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and mortality in patients (pts) with COVID-19 in the general population. However, whether obesity is a risk factor in cancer pts remains unknown. Herein, we have conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis of obesity and all-cause mortality in cancer pts with COVID-19. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines,a systematic search of PubMed and Embase as well as major conference proceedings (ASCO/ESMO/AACR) was conducted for publications from inception to 14 January 2020. Observational studies that reported all-cause mortality in cancer pts with lab confirmation or clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 and BMI (obese (>30 kg/m2) vs. non-obese) were included in the analysis. The pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated with the fixed-effects model based on low heterogeneity. Small sample publication bias was evaluated using the Begg’s Funnel Plot and Egger’s test. Results: After reviewing 3387 studies,3 retrospective cohort studies of 419 obese and 1694 non-obese cancer pts (N=2117) with COVID-19 in both inpatient/outpatient settings that reported outcomes based on obesity were found. The 3 studies were conducted multi-nationally in North America, in France, and in the Netherlands respectively. The median ages of the cohorts ranged 66-68. All studies included various cancers of various stages and were of high quality per Newcastle Ottawa scale (scores 7-9). Fixed effects meta-analysis showed no association between obesity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74-1.23) in cancer pts with COVID-19. Heterogeneity was low (I2 = 33%). No significant funnel plot asymmetry was detected per Egger’s test (P=0.2273). The reported OR of each study is outlined in the table. Conclusions: In contrast to the general population, our analysis reveals that obesity is not associated with increased all-cause mortality in cancer pts with COVID-19. Limitations of this study include a limited number of included studies, reliance on retrospective studies, non-use of ethnicity-specific WHO BMI criteria, and limited granularity of the study-reported BMI. Future prospective studies are warranted to assess the complex interplay among anthropomorphic measures, cachexia/sarcopenia, comorbidities associated with the metabolic syndrome, and COVID-19 outcomes in the cancer pt population.[Table: see text]

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.040
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.555
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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCardiovascular Disease and AdiposityFrench-language works237,207