Associated Links Among Smoking, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Pooled Analysis in the International Lung Cancer Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The high relapse and mortality rate of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) fuels the need for epidemiologic study to aid in its prevention. METHODS: We included 24 studies from the ILCCO collaboration. Random-effects panel logistic regression and cubic spline regression were used to estimate the effects of smoking behaviors on SCLC risk and explore their non-linearity. Further, we explored whether the risk of smoking on SCLC was mediated through COPD. FINDINGS: Significant dose-response relationships of SCLC risk were observed for all quantitative smoking variables. Smoking pack-years were associated with a sharper increase of SCLC risk for pack-years ranged 0 to approximately 50. The former smokers with longer cessation showed a 43%quit_for_5-9 years to 89%quit_for_≥ 20 years declined SCLC risk vs. subjects who had quit smoking < 5 years. Compared with non-COPD subjects, smoking behaviors showed a significantly higher effect on SCLC risk among COPD subjects, and further, COPD patients showed a 1.86-fold higher risk of SCLC. Furthermore, smoking behaviors on SCLC risk were significantly mediated through COPD which accounted for 0.70% to 7.55% of total effects. INTERPRETATION: This is the largest pooling study that provides improved understanding of smoking on SCLC, and further demonstrates a causal pathway through COPD that warrants further experimental study.
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 | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".