MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4321846045 · doi:10.2196/43409

Investigation of the Trajectory of Muscle and Body Mass as a Prognostic Factor in Patients With Colorectal Cancer: Longitudinal Cohort Study

2023· article· en· W4321846045 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dongjin Seo, Han Sang Kim, Joong Bae Ahn, Yu Rang Park

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYonsei University College of MedicineNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaMinistry of Trade, Industry and EnergyYonsei UniversityNational Research Foundation
KeywordsColorectal cancerMedicineCohortRisk factorCohort studyMuscle massLongitudinal studyBody mass indexCancerOncologyEnvironmental healthPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Skeletal muscle and BMI are essential prognostic factors for survival in colorectal cancer (CRC). However, there is a lack of understanding due to scarce studies on the continuous aspects of these variables. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of the initial status and trajectories of muscle and BMI on overall survival (OS) and assess whether these 4 profiles within 1 year can represent the profiles 6 years later. Methods We analyzed 4056 newly diagnosed patients with CRC between 2010 to 2020. The volume of the muscle with 5-mm thickness at the third lumbar spine level was measured using a pretrained deep learning algorithm. The skeletal muscle volume index (SMVI) was defined as the muscle volume divided by the square of the height. The correlation between BMI status at the first, third, and sixth years of diagnosis was analyzed and assessed similarly for muscle profiles. Prognostic significances of baseline BMI and SMVI and their 1-year trajectories for OS were evaluated by restricted cubic spline analysis and survival analysis. Patients were categorized based on these 4 dimensions, and prognostic risks were predicted and demonstrated using heat maps. Results Trajectories of SMVI were categorized as decreased (812/4056, 20%), steady (2014/4056, 49.7%), or increased (1230/4056, 30.3%). Similarly, BMI trajectories were categorized as decreased (792/4056, 19.5%), steady (2253/4056, 55.5%), or increased (1011/4056, 24.9%). BMI and SMVI values in the first year after diagnosis showed a statistically significant correlation with those in the third and sixth years (P<.001). Restricted cubic spline analysis showed a nonlinear relationship between baseline BMI and SMVI change ratio and OS; BMI, in particular, showed a U-shaped correlation. According to survival analysis, increased BMI (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83; P=.02), high baseline SMVI (HR 0.82; P=.04), and obesity stage 1 (HR 0.80; P=.02) showed a favorable impact, whereas decreased SMVI trajectory (HR 1.31; P=.001), decreased BMI (HR 1.23; P=.02), and initial underweight (HR 1.38; P=.02) or obesity stages 2-3 (HR 1.79; P=.01) were negative prognostic factors for OS. Considered simultaneously, BMI >30 kg/m2 with a low SMVI at the time of diagnosis resulted in the highest mortality risk. We observed improved survival in patients with increased muscle mass without BMI loss compared to those with steady muscle mass and BMI. Conclusions Profiles within 1 year of both BMI and muscle were surrogate indicators for predicting the later profiles. Continuous trajectories of body and muscle mass are independent prognostic factors of patients with CRC. An automatic algorithm provides a unique opportunity to conduct longitudinal evaluations of body compositions. Further studies to understand the complicated natural courses of muscularity and adiposity are necessary for clinical application.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance→Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→