Impact of Patient Characteristics on the Outcomes of Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancers Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are a group of malignancies that globally account for a significant portion of cancer incidence and cancer-related death. Survival outcomes for esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, and hepatobiliary cancers remain poor, but new treatment paradigms are emerging with the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. This review characterizes patient-related prognostic factors that influence the response to ICI therapy. We performed an analysis of the landmark randomized clinical trials in esophageal, gastric, colorectal, hepatocellular, pancreatic, and biliary tract cancers in terms of patient demographic factors. A literature review of smaller retrospective studies investigating patient-related factors was completed. The immunological bases for these associations were further explored. The key predictive factors identified include age, sex, performance status, geography, body mass index, sarcopenia, gut microbiome, various biochemical factors, and disease distribution.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".