Impact of body composition and muscle health phenotypes on survival outcomes in colorectal cancer: a multicenter cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body composition abnormalities are prognostic markers in several types of cancer, including colorectal cancer (CRC). Using our data distribution on body composition assessments and classifications could improve clinical evaluations and support population-specific opportune interventions. This study aimed to evaluate the distribution of body composition from computed tomography and assess the associations with overall survival among patients with CRC. In this multicenter cohort study, patients ( N = 635) aged 18 years and older with CRC were observed for 12 to 36 months to assess outcomes. Skeletal muscle area (SM) and index (SMI), skeletal muscle radiodensity (SMD), intermuscular adipose tissue (IMAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) were evaluated, and classified based on tertile distributions. Low muscle mass (SMI) and poor muscle composition (SMD) were independent predictors of mortality regardless of follow-up period. This risk of mortality increased to more than 3-fold when combining both low SMI and low SMD (HR adjusted 3.1, 95% CI 1.8 to 5.4, respectively). Our study indicates that body composition characteristics may vary across countries, highlighting the need for developing sex- and population-specific cutoff values for computed tomography assessments in patients with different types of cancer.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".