MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404425435 · doi:10.1007/s00404-024-07829-z

Association of body mass index with pathologic agreement of preoperative and postoperative tumor grade in endometrial cancer

2024· article· en· W4404425435 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha Taylor, Peter Scalia, Raanan Meyer, Melica Nourmoussavi Brodeur, Shannon Salvador, Susie Lau, Walter H. Gotlieb, Gabriel Levin

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Gynecology and Obstetrics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University
FundersHebrew University of JerusalemIsrael Cancer Research Fund
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexInterquartile rangeInternal medicineObesityPopulationGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective We aim to study association of BMI of EC patients, with the level of agreement between preoperative and postoperative tumor grade. Methods A retrospective study. We included patients with EC diagnosed in an outpatient clinic which had surgical staging as in our division. We categorized patients into BMI categories according to the World Health Organization; (BMI < 18.5 kg/m 2 ), (BMI 18.5–24.9 kg/m 2 ), (BMI 25–29.9 kg/m 2 ), (BMI 30–34.9 kg/m 2 ), (BMI 35–39.9 kg/m 2 ), and (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m 2 ). We further dichotomized the study population for obesity, defined as BMI ≥ 30.0. We analyzed agreement between preoperative and postoperative tumor grade, stratified by patient’s BMI. Results Overall, 623 women met study inclusion criteria, with a median age of 64 [interquartile range (IQR) 57–72]. Among the study cohort, the median BMI was 30.7 [IQR 25.6–38.8], with 330 (53.0%) patients being obese. EC grade 1 was diagnosed preoperatively in 353 (56.7%), grade 3 in 148 (23.8%), and grade 2 in 122 (19.6%). Endometrioid histology was diagnosed in 463 (74.3%), serous in 78 (12.5%), mixed histotype in 51 (8.2%), clear cell in 20 (3.2%) and carcinosarcoma in 11 (1.8%). In 68.7% ( n = 428), there was no change in postoperative grade, and in 24.9% ( n = 155), there was upgrading of tumor, and in 6.4% ( n = 40), there was a tumor downgrade. There were 3 (0.5%) cases in which no tumor was found on final pathology. The rate of no change was higher in preoperative grade 3 (89.9%) vs. grades 1 (63.5%) and grade 2 (58.2%), p < .001). There was no difference in grading agreement when obese patients were compared to non-obese, p = .248. There was no difference in grading agreement when comparing the various BMI categories, with no change proportion ranging between 58.2% in BMI 30.0–34.9 mg/kg 2 and 79.7% in BMI 35.0–39.9 mg/kg 2 , p = .104. ROC analysis of BMI as predictor of no-change yielded an area under the curve of 0.466 (95% confidence interval 0.418–0.515) with a maximal performance at a BMI of 33.8 mg/kg 2 . The agreement between preoperative and postoperative tumor grade among all patients was kappa = 0.517. The agreement did not differ when compared between obese patients (kappa = 0.456) and non-obese (kappa = 0.575). Conclusion Our study found no significant association between BMI and the agreement between preoperative and postoperative tumor grading in EC.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Gynecology and ObstetricsSame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207