Abstract 4826: International Lung Cancer Consortium: Pooled analysis of previous lung diseases and lung cancer risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To clarify the role of previous lung diseases (PLDs) (chronic bronchitis, emphysema, pneumonia, tuberculosis, asbestosis and silicosis) in the development of lung cancer we conducted a pooled analysis in the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO). Data from 16 studies (9 population based case-control, 4 hospital based case-control, 2 mixed case-control and 1 cohort - 10 from North America, 5 from Europe and 1 from Asia) were pooled, including 24044 cases and 81256 controls. Study-specific effect estimates were derived using logistic regression models for case-control studies and Cox proportional hazards models for cohort studies adjusted for age, sex, education and pack-years of smoking. Effect estimates were then pooled using random effects models where summary effects for each of the PLDs were evaluated separately. Stratified analyses were conducted based on smoking status, histology and study design or control source. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the Cochrane Q statistic and Galbraith plots, and publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots as well as the Begg test. A previous history of emphysema conferred a relative risk (RR) of 2.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.67-2.82 (from 15 studies, p-het<.001). A previous history of chronic bronchitis conferred a RR of 1.49, 95% CI: 1.33-1.60 (from 12 studies, p-het.=0.434). Tuberculosis was associated with a RR of 1.54, 95% CI: 1.19-1.99 (from 15 studies, p-het.=0.001). Both asbestosis (RR 2.51, 95% CI: 1.53-4.12 (from 7 studies, p-het=0.379)) and silicosis (RR 1.70, 95% CI: 1.15-2.54, (from 3 studies, p-het. p=0.476)) were also associated with lung cancer risk. When the outlying studies were removed, effect estimates changed minimally and heterogeneity was reduced. Findings were consistent in subgroup analyses by smoking status and histology (adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and small cell lung cancer). Effect estimates among never smokers were for emphysema a RR of 2.21, 95% CI: 0.99-4.90 (from 8 studies), for chronic bronchitis 1.12, 95% CI: 0.78-1.62 (from 9 studies), for pneumonia 1.37, 95% CI: 1.10-1.70 (from 10 studies) and for tuberculosis 1.54, 95% CI: 0.99-2.39 (from 9 studies). In this analysis of data from multiple continents, PLDs were associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. The evidence among never smokers supports a direct relationship between previous lung diseases and lung cancer. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 4826.
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 | 0.036 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".