MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396708268 · doi:10.1007/s00404-024-07537-8

Association between BMI and oncologic outcomes in epithelial ovarian cancer: a predictors-matched case-control study

2024· article· en· W4396708268 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriel Levin, Yoav Brezinov, Yossi Tzur, Tomer Bar-Noy, Melica Nourmoussavi Brodeur, Shannon Salvador, Susie Lau, Walter H. Gotlieb

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Gynecology and Obstetrics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersHebrew University of JerusalemIsrael Cancer Research Fund
KeywordsMedicineEpithelial ovarian cancerOvarian cancerOncologyCase-control studyInternal medicineBody mass indexGynecologyCancerAssociation (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to study the association between obesity and survival in ovarian cancer (OC) patients, accounting for confounders as disease stage, histology, and comorbidities. METHODS: ) based on disease stage, cytoreduction state, tumor histology and ASA score. We compared the 3-year and total recurrence-free survival and overall survival through Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: Overall, 153 consecutive patients were included, of whom 32 (20.9%) had a BMI ≥ 35. and 121 a BMI < 35. The median follow-up time was 39 months (interquartile range 18-67). Both study groups were similar in multiple prognostic factors, including American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, completion of cytoreduction, histology and stage of disease (p = 0.981, p = 0.992, p = 0.740 and p = 0.984, respectively). Ninety-five (62.1%) patients underwent robotic surgery and conversion rate from robotic to laparotomy was similar in both groups 2 (6.3%) in obese group vs. 6 (5.0%) in lower BMI patients, p = 0.673. During the follow-up time, the rate of recurrence was similar in both groups; 21 (65.6%) in obese group vs. 68 (57.1%), p = 0.387 and the rate of death events was similar; 16 (50.0%) in obese group vs. 49 (40.5%), p = 0.333). The 3-year OS was higher in the obese group (log rank p = 0.042) but the 3-year RFS was similar in both groups (log rank p = 0.556). Median total OS was similar in both groups 62 months (95% confidence interval 25-98 months) in obese vs. 67 months (95% confidence interval 15-118) in the lower BMI group, log rank p = 0.822. Median RFS was similar in both groups; 61 months (95% confidence interval 47-74) in obese, vs. 54 (95% confidence interval 43-64), log rank p = 0.842. In Cox regression analysis for OS, including obesity, age, laparotomy and neoadjuvant treatment - only neoadjuvant treatment was independently associated with longer OS: odds ratio 1.82 (95% confidence interval 1.09-3.05) and longer RFS: odds ratio 2.16 (95% confidence interval 1.37-3.41). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study on consecutive cases of ovarian cancer, obesity did not seem to be associated with outcome, except for an apparent improved 3-year survival that faded away thereafter.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Gynecology and ObstetricsSame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207