Is cancer biology different in older patients?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Roughly 50% of cancer cases occur in people aged 65 years or older. Older people are often diagnosed at a later stage and might receive less (intensive) treatment, which might affect the outcome. In addition, an older age might be associated with biological differences in tumour and microenvironment behaviour, a domain that has been poorly studied so far. In this narrative Review of published literature, we explored the reported differences in tumour biology according to age in five major cancer types: breast, colorectal, prostate, lung, and melanoma. Our literature search uncovered clear differences in tumour histology and subtype distribution in older people compared with younger patients, as well as age-specific patterns of tumour mutations and other molecular alterations. Several studies also indicate notable changes in tumour-infiltrating immune cells in tumours of older versus younger people, although this research is still in its infancy. More research is needed and might lead to a better understanding of the biology of ageing in relation to malignancy. This knowledge could provide new perspectives for more personalised cancer treatments, eventually improving the global outcomes of older patients with 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it