Associations between body mass index and bladder cancer survival: Is the obesity paradox short-lived?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We investigated the associations of pre-surgical body mass index (BMI) with bladder cancer outcomes in patients treated with radical cystectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 488 bladder cancer patients treated with radical cystectomy between 1994 and 2007 and followed up until 2016. Cox regression with step function (time-segment analysis) was conducted for overall survival because the proportional hazard assumption was violated. RESULTS: Of 488 bladder cancer patients, 155 (31.8%) were normal weight, 186 (38.1%) were overweight, and 147 (30.1%) were obese. During the median followup of 59.5 months, 363 (74.4%) patients died, including 197 (40.4%) from bladder cancer. In adjusted Cox regression analyses, BMI was not significantly associated with bladder cancer-specific survival for overweight (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-1.10, p=0.16) or obese (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.52-1.09, p=0.13) patients. In the Cox regression with step function for overall survival, the time interaction was significant overall (p=0.020) and specifically for over-weight patients (p=0.006). In the time-segment model, the HR for overweight during the first 63 months was 0.66 (95% CI 0.49-0.90, p=0.008), whereas it was 1.41 (95% CI 0.89-2.23, p=0.14) after 63 months. Although not statistically significant, a similar pattern was observed for obese patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that overweight and obese bladder cancer patients had better outcomes within the first five years after radical cystectomy; however, there were no differences in longer-term survival. These data suggest that the obesity paradox in bladder cancer patients treated with radical cystectomy may be short-lived.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".