MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411162532 · doi:10.1002/hed.28210

Sarcopenia Trajectories Predict Survival in Operable Head and Neck Cancer

2025· article· en· W4411162532 on OpenAlexafffund
Marco A. Mascarella, Alex Mlynarek, Keith Richardson, Karen Kost, Anthony Zeitouni, Khalil Sultanem, Christina Tsien, George Shenouda, Nathaniel Bouganim, Khashayar Esfahani, Michael P. Hier, Nader Sadeghi, Marie‐Jeanne Kergoat

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersRéseau de cancérologie Rossy
KeywordsSarcopeniaHead and neck cancerHead and neckOncologyMedicineCancerInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia is associated with increased treatment toxicity and survival in head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC). This study evaluates sarcopenia trajectories and their association with overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in operable HNSCC. METHODS: Pre- and post-treatment body composition metrics of patients with stage II-IV HPV-negative HNSCC undergoing surgery were performed. Sarcopenia trajectories were categorized as remains sarcopenic, remains non-sarcopenic, recovers from sarcopenia, or progresses to sarcopenia using multiple Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 332 patients, 108 were sarcopenic at baseline, and 106 remained sarcopenic post-treatment. Patients who remained sarcopenic or progressed to sarcopenia demonstrated significantly worse OS (HR: 2.08, 95% CI: 1.27-3.41 and HR: 3.05, 95% CI: 1.40-6.62) and DFS (HR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.17-2.72 and HR: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.03-4.36), compared to those who remained non-sarcopenic while adjusting for confounding factors. CONCLUSION: Sarcopenia trajectories represent dynamic biomarkers that predict oncologic outcome in patients with operable HNSCC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207