MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414203572 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32090510

Impact of Body Composition on Progression-Free Survival in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer Treated with Ribociclib

2025· article· en· W4414203572 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmet Fatih Oruç, Mustafa Erol, Özlem Şahin, Melek Karakurt Eryılmaz, Murat Araz, Mehmet Artaç

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetastatic breast cancerOverall survivalBreast cancerCancerProportional hazards model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: This study aims to determine whether body composition parameters affect progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with hormone receptor positive and HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer treated with ribociclib as first-line therapy. Materials and methods: It was designed as a single-center, retrospective study; therefore, its generalizability is limited. At the start of treatment, 18F-FDG PET/CT scans were performed on patients, and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) volume, SAT and VAT SUV (standardized uptake value) mean, SAT and VAT index, skeletal muscle index (SMI), and skeletal muscle radiodensity (SMD) were calculated at the L3 vertebra level. The albumin-myosteatosis gauge (AMG) was defined as SMD × albumin. Results: The study included 73 participants. Increased SAT and VAT volumes were associated with worse PFS (23.4 vs. 35.5 months, p: 0.015; 25.4 vs. 33.3 months, p: 0.114). However, in the multivariable cox regression analysis for progression free survival (PFS), an increase in SAT volume [HR 4.96; p: 0.038)] and SAT SUV mean [HR 2.99; p: 0.016)] were identified as independent risk factors. Conclusions: It should be noted that in patients treated with ribociclib, increases in SAT volume and SAT SUV mean are independent risk factors for PFS.

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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207