Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer cachexia is a multifaceted metabolic syndrome characterized by muscle wasting, fat redistribution, and metabolic dysregulation, commonly associated with advanced cancer but sometimes also evident in early-stage disease. More subtle body composition changes have also been reported in association with cancer, including sarcopenia, myosteatosis, and increased fat radiodensity. Emerging evidence reveals that body composition changes including sarcopenia, myosteatosis, and increased fat radiodensity, arise from distinct biological mechanisms and significantly impact survival outcomes. Importantly, these features often occur independently, with their combined presence exacerbating poor prognoses. Tumor plays a pivotal role in driving these host changes, either by acting as a metabolic parasite or by releasing mediators that disrupt normal tissue function. This review explores the diversity of tumor metabolism. It highlights the potential for tumor-specific metabolic phenotypes to influence systemic effects, including fat redistribution and sarcopenia. Addressing this tumor-host metabolic interplay requires personalized approaches that disrupt tumor metabolism while preserving host health. Promising strategies include targeted pharmacological interventions and anticachexia agents like growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) inhibitors. Nutritional modifications such as ketogenic diets and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation also merit further investigation. In addition to preserving muscle, these therapies will need to be evaluated for their capability to improve survival and quality of life. This review underscores the need for further research into tumor-driven metabolic effects on the host and the development of integrative treatment strategies to address the interconnected challenges of cancer progression and cachexia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".