Association between body mass index, obesity, and vulvar cancer recurrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The objective of this paper is to study the association between obesity and tumor recurrence in patients with vulvar cancer. Methods This is a retrospective study including vulvar cancer patients from 2003 to 2022. Our primary outcome was progression‐free survival (PFS) stratified by status of obesity, defined as body mass index (BMI) >30.0 kg/m 2 . Results Overall, 48 patients were included in the study, with 32 (66.7%) diagnosed at early stages (I–II). The median BMI was 28.0 kg/m 2 [interquartile range 24.9–32.3 kg/m 2 ]. There were 13 obese patients (27%), and the median follow‐up time was 55 months [interquartile range 14–102]. Most patients (80%) were HPV‐independent of human papilloma virus. Surgical intervention was the primary treatment modality for 88% ( n = 42) of the cohort, and 26 patients (54%) received adjuvant chemoradiation. Disease recurrence was identified in 28 patients (58%). The median PFS was 68 months, and the median overall survival was 109 months. There was no difference in the median PFS between obese patients and non‐obese patients ( P = 0.370). In a Cox regression analysis, after adjusting for patient age, margin‐free distance, and stage of disease, BMI was not associated with PFS hazard ratio 1.06 (0.99–1.12). Conclusion Obesity is not associated with PFS in patients with vulvar cancer, and BMI might not be considered a risk factor for recurrence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".