MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Association between empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) and survival in patients with stage III colon cancer: Findings from CALGB/SWOG 80702 (Alliance).

2025· article· en· W4411026895 on OpenAlexaff
S. Khosrowjerdi, Qian Shi, Tyler Zemla, Chao Ma, En Cheng, Priya Kumthekar, Katherine A. Guthrie, Félix Couture, J. Phillip Kuebler, Pankaj Kumar, Benjamin Tan, Smitha Krishnamurthi, Brian M. Wolpin, Francois J. Geoffroy, Fred K. Tabung, Anthony F. Shields, Eileen M. O’Reilly, Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, Chen Yuan, Kimmie Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerOncologyInternal medicineCancerOverall survival

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA3509 Background: Systemic inflammation has been implicated in colon cancer progression. We examined whether intake of a proinflammatory diet is associated with survival among patients (pts) with stage III colon cancer. Methods: This prospective cohort study was nested within a randomized phase III trial of adjuvant therapy in pts with stage III colon cancer who had undergone curative-intent resection. EDIP score – a validated tool to classify the inflammatory nature of diets – was derived as a cumulative exposure using data from food-frequency questionnaires completed within 6 weeks of randomization and 14-16 months (mo) after randomization. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the associations of EDIP with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Of 1625 included pts, the mean (SD) age was 60.9 (10.5) years (yrs). Compared to pts in the lowest EDIP quintile, pts in the highest quintile (a more inflammatory diet) were younger (58.7 ± 10.8 vs 61.3 ± 9.5 yrs old) and more likely to be female (64.0% vs 48.9%) and have worse performance status (ECOG 1-2: 35.7% vs 19.4%). Pts in the highest quintile were less likely to be White (76.6% vs 92.0 %) and more likely to be Black (15.4% vs 3.7%). Baseline aspirin use, assigned chemotherapy (3 mo vs 6 mo), and assigned pharmacotherapy (celecoxib vs placebo) were not significantly different across EDIP quintiles. Compared with pts in the lowest EDIP quintile, pts in the highest quintile had significantly worse OS (multivariable hazard ratio [HR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-2.77, P trend =0.01), but not DFS (HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.99-1.86, P trend =0.22). Diet and physical activity jointly influenced OS. Those with lower EDIP scores (quintiles 1-4, 80% of the study population) and higher physical activity (≥9 MET-h/wk) had the best OS (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.25-0.53) compared with pts in the highest EDIP quintile (20% of the study population) and lower physical activity (<9 MET-h/wk) ( P interaction <0.001). The association between higher EDIP and OS was consistent when analyzed by celecoxib and placebo treatment arms ( P interaction 0.54). The relationship between EDIP and OS did not differ significantly according to aspirin use, with HR 1.60 (95% CI 0.71-3.60) among aspirin users and HR 2.01 (95% CI 1.27-3.16) among aspirin non-users ( P interaction 0.06). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that greater intake of a proinflammatory dietary pattern is associated with worse OS in pts with stage III colon cancer. Regular physical activity may attenuate the association, and further investigation of diet and physical activity intervention is warranted. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, U10CA180863, CCS 707213, UG1CA233234, U10CA180820, U10CA180868, U10CA180888; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01150045.

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)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune ResponseFrench-language works237,207