Obesity and mortality among endometrial cancer survivors: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Excess body fat is a major risk factor for endometrial cancer incidence, but its impact on recurrence and survival remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to assess the association between excess body fat with recurrence, cancer‐specific, and all‐cause mortality among endometrial cancer survivors. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to July 2021. Risk of bias was assessed with the Ottawa Newcastle Scale. Random effects models estimated pooled hazard ratios for the main associations between body mass index (BMI) and survival outcomes and stratified by endometrial cancer type. Potential heterogeneity and publication bias were evaluated with sensitivity analyses, funnel plots, and Egger's test. Forty‐six studies were included, of which 45 estimated body fat with BMI and six used direct waist circumference measures or CT/MRI scans. Higher BMI (≥30 kg/m 2 ) was associated with increased all‐cause mortality (HR = 1.34, 95%CI = 1.12–1.59) and recurrence (HR = 1.28, 95%CI = 1.06–1.56). In sub‐group analysis, associations between higher BMI and all‐cause mortality were observed for both Types I and II survivors, while recurrence associations were only significant among Type I cases. Obesity at endometrial cancer diagnosis was associated with increased cancer recurrence and all‐cause mortality among endometrial cancer survivors but not endometrial cancer‐specific 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.034 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".