Balance and vestibular function and survival in US cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cancer and its treatment damage the musculoskeletal system and induce neurotoxicity, affecting the key sensory inputs for maintaining balance. The present study describes the pattern of balance impairment and evaluated its association with mortality among US cancer survivors. Methods Data on a nationally representative sample of cancer survivors from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999 to 2015 was analyzed. Sensory‐specific balance impairment was measured at baseline by the modified Romberg test of standing balance on firm and compliant support surfaces. The linked mortality data were updated through December 31, 2015. Results Among 511 cancer survivors, 282 (48.3%) had a balance impairment, predominantly attributing to vestibular dysfunction (251; 89.0% of 282 and 44.5% of 511). A higher prevalence of balance impairment was observed among cancer survivors with advanced age, lower socioeconomic status or educational attainment, body mass index <25 kg/m 2 , and an inactive lifestyle. During up to 16.4 years of follow‐up (median, 11.3 years; 5088 person‐years), 253 cancer survivors had died. Cancer survivors with a balance impairment had a 63% higher risk of death from all causes (hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12‐2.38) after adjusting for sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and cancer type. Specifically, those with vestibular dysfunctions had approximately 1.54 (95% CI, 1.05‐2.27) times the risk of death compared to those without any balance impairment. These associations were stronger in males than in females. Conclusions In a US nationally representative sample of cancer survivors, balance impairment and vestibular dysfunctions were prevalent and associated with heightened all‐cause mortality.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".