Detection of sarcopenic obesity and prediction of long‐term survival in patients with gastric cancer using preoperative computed tomography and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies evaluating the prognostic value of computed tomography (CT)-derived body composition data have included few patients. Thus, we assessed the prevalence and prognostic value of sarcopenic obesity in a large population of gastric cancer patients using preoperative CT, as nutritional status is a predictor of long-term survival after gastric cancer surgery. METHODS: Preoperative CT images were analyzed for 840 gastric cancer patients who underwent gastrectomy between March 2009 and June 2018. Machine learning algorithms were used to automatically detect the third lumbar (L3) vertebral level and segment the body composition. Visceral fat area and skeletal muscle index at L3 were determined and used to classify patients into obesity, sarcopenia, or sarcopenic obesity groups. RESULTS: Out of 840 patients (mean age = 60.4 years; 526 [62.6%] men), 534 (63.5%) had visceral obesity, 119 (14.2%) had sarcopenia, and 48 (5.7%) patients had sarcopenic obesity. Patients with sarcopenic obesity had a poorer prognosis than those without sarcopenia (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.325; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.698-6.508). Multivariate analysis identified sarcopenic obesity as an independent risk factor for increased mortality (HR = 2.608; 95% CI = 1.313-5.179). Other risk factors were greater extent of gastrectomy (HR = 1.928; 95% CI = 1.260-2.950), lower prognostic nutritional index (HR = 0.934; 95% CI = 0.901-0.969), higher neutrophil count (HR = 1.101; 95% CI = 1.031-1.176), lymph node metastasis (HR = 6.291; 95% CI = 3.498-11.314), and R1/2 resection (HR = 4.817; 95% CI = 1.518-9.179). CONCLUSION: Body composition analysis automated by machine learning predicted long-term survival in patients with gastric 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".