MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409785972 · doi:10.1038/s41523-025-00754-7

Body composition metrics as a determinant of trastuzumab deruxtecan related toxicity and response

2025· article· en· W4409785972 on OpenAlexaff
Rivka Kessner, Yael Bar, Amir Sonnenblick, Shir Lerner, Ariella Deutsch-Lukatsky, Karteek Popuri, Mirza Faisal Beg, Shlomit Strulov Shachar

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Breast Cancer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrastuzumabToxicityComposition (language)ChemistryInternal medicineMedicineCancerBreast cancerArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body composition is an important predictor in cancer patients, with skeletal muscle loss and high adiposity associated with poorer prognosis. This study evaluated how body composition affects treatment efficacy in 48 women with metastatic breast cancer receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan. Using computed tomography, skeletal muscle, visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) were assessed within 60 days before initiating treatment. High SAT and VAT areas were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of dose reductions (Odds Ratio [OR] = 5.34, p = .032 and OR = 5.52, p = 0.032, respectively). Higher SAT areas correlated with a lower objective response rate (OR = 0.22, p = 0.047). Medium SAT and low/medium VAT densities increased the risk of dose reductions. A body mass index over 25 kg/m 2 was linked to higher dose reductions (OR = 4.97, p = 0.016). These findings emphasize the need for personalized treatment strategies based on body composition.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Breast CancerSame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207