MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400238146 · doi:10.1002/jpen.2666

Integrated impact of multiple body composition parameters on overall survival in gastrointestinal or genitourinary cancers: A descriptive cohort study

2024· article· en· W4400238146 on OpenAlexaff
Kotaro Sugawara, Satoru Taguchi, Wataru Gonoi, Shouhei Hanaoka, Shinichiro Shiomi, Kenjiro Kishitani, Yukari Uemura, Nobuhiko Akamatsu, Shohei Inui, Koji Tanaka, Koichi Yagi, Taketo Kawai, Tohru Nakagawa, Hiroshi Fukuhara, Osamu Abe, Haruki Kume, Marı́a Cristina González, Carla M. Prado, Yasuyuki Seto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkeletal muscleMedicineAdipose tissueRadiodensityProportional hazards modelSarcopeniaHazard ratioBody mass indexGenitourinary systemInternal medicineCohortSurvival analysisSurvival rateCancerGastroenterologyOncologySurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate if combining low muscle mass with additional body composition abnormalities, such as myosteatosis or adiposity, could improve survival prediction accuracy in a large cohort of gastrointestinal and genitourinary malignancies. METHODS: In total, 2015 patients with surgically-treated gastrointestinal or genitourinary cancer were retrospectively analyzed. Skeletal muscle index, skeletal muscle radiodensity, and visceral/subcutaneous adipose tissue index were determined. The primary outcome was overall survival determined by hospital records. Multivariate Cox hazard models were used to identify independent predictors for poor survival. C-statistics were assessed to quantify the prognostic capability of the models with or without incorporating body composition parameters. RESULTS: Survival curves were significantly demarcated by all 4 measures. Skeletal muscle radiodensity was associated with non-cancer-related deaths but not with cancer-specific survival. The survival outcome of patients with low skeletal muscle index was poor (5-year OS; 65.2%), especially when present in combination with low skeletal muscle radiodensity (5-year overall survival; 50.2%). All examined body composition parameters were independent predictors of lower overall survival. The model for predicting overall survival without incorporating body composition parameters had a c-index of 0.68 but increased to 0.71 with the inclusion of low skeletal muscle index and 0.72 when incorporating both low skeletal muscle index and low skeletal muscle radiodensity/visceral adipose tissue index/subcutaneous adipose tissue index. CONCLUSION: Patients exhibiting both low skeletal muscle index and other body composition abnormalities, particularly low skeletal muscle radiodensity, had poorer overall survival. Models incorporating multiple body composition prove valuable for mortality prediction in oncology settings.

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 score0.006

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.302 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Parenteral and Enteral NutritionSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207