ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2025
A Creatinine-CAR Composite Index (CCAR) Optimized by Machine Learning for Prognosis in Cancer Cachexia.
Article in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatiotemporal dynamics of the host-tumor metabolic interface: Implications for precision nutritional oncology.Genes & diseases · 2026Review
- A Creatinine-CAR Composite Index (CCAR) Optimized by Machine Learning for Prognosis in Cancer Cachexia.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCancer cachexia is a multifactorial syndrome associated with poor prognosis and impaired quality of life in cancer patients. However, survival prediction in cancer cachexia remains difficult due to the lack of reliable biomarkers.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study analysed data from 1,367 patients with cancer cachexia diagnosed according to the 2011 Fearon consensus, using the multicentre INSCOC database. The cohort was divided into a training set (n = 959), an internal validation set (n = 408), and an independent external validation cohort (n = 284). The mean age of the entire cohort was 58.7 ± 10.9 years, and 39.4% were female. LASSO regression identified creatinine (Cr) as a key predictor. The CCAR (Cr + CAR) index was then constructed using Cr and CAR within a random forest model. Prognostic performance was assessed by Harrell's concordance index (C-index), time-dependent AUC, Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox regression, with overall survival (OS) as the primary endpoint.
resultsThe CCAR index consistently outperformed conventional inflammation- and nutrition-related markers across all three cohorts. The C-index values for CCAR were 0.777 in the training cohort, 0.789 in the internal validation cohort, and 0.765 in the external validation cohort, compared with 0.627-0.660 for CAR ALONE. Patients in the high-CCAR group had significantly worse OS than those in the low-CCAR group (log-rank p < 0.0001 for all cohorts). Multivariate Cox regression confirmed that CCAR was an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR 3.31, 95% CI 2.94-3.72 in the training set; HR 3.51, 95% CI 2.93-4.22 in the validation set; HR 3.21, 95% CI 2.55-4.03 in the external cohort; all p < 0.001). A web-based calculator (https://heyangzhang.pythonanywhere.com) was developed for real-time CCAR computation and survival predictions.
conclusionThe CCAR index provides a robust, easily accessible tool for predicting survival outcomes in cancer cachexia patients. The web-based CCAR calculator demonstrates significant clinical applicability and improves patient risk stratification, offering potential for guiding early interventions and personalized treatment strategies in clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.