Prospective cohort study of metabolic syndrome and endometrial cancer survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Comorbidities are known to increase endometrial cancer risk, but the separate and combined impact of these risk factors on endometrial cancer survival remains unclear. This study aimed to determine the associations between metabolic syndrome and its components with disease-free survival, overall survival, endometrial cancer-specific survival and recurrence among endometrial cancer survivors. Methods: Cases from a population-based case-control study who were diagnosed with primary endometrial cancer between 2002 and 2006 in Alberta, Canada were followed until death or March 20, 2019. Baseline in-person interviews, direct anthropometric measurements and fasting blood samples were used to assess metabolic syndrome (presence of =3 of the following: waist circumference = 88 cm, fasting blood glucose =100 mg/dL, triglycerides =150 mg/dL, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol <50 mg/dL and self-reported hypertension). Cox proportional hazards regression and Fine and Gray competing risk models were used to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for these associations. Results: Among 540 endometrial cancer survivors, 325 had metabolic syndrome at diagnosis and 132 had a recurrence and/or died during the median 14.2 years of follow-up (range: 0.3–16.5 years). In multivariable analyses, being diagnosed with metabolic syndrome (HR = 1.98, 95% CI = 1.07–3.67) and having an elevated waist circumference (=88 cm; HR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.18–3.80; HRper 5 cm = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.07–1.36) were associated with worse overall survival. Additionally, increasing waist circumference (per 5 cm) was also associated worse with disease-free survival (HRper 5 cm = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.00–1.24). Conclusion: The metabolic syndrome, in particular central adiposity, were associated with worse overall and disease-free survival in endometrial cancer survivors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".