Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease is Associated with Lung Cancer Mortality in a Prospective Study of Never Smokers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Several studies have suggested that previous lung disease may increase the risk of lung cancer. It is important to clarify the association between previous lung disease and lung cancer risk in the general population. OBJECTIVES: The association between self-reported physician-diagnosed chronic bronchitis and emphysema and lung cancer mortality was examined in a U.S. prospective study of 448,600 lifelong nonsmokers who were cancer-free at baseline. METHODS: During the 20-year follow-up period from 1982 to 2002, 1,759 lung cancer deaths occurred. Cox proportional hazards models were used to obtain adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for lung cancer mortality associated with chronic bronchitis and emphysema as well as for both of these diseases together. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Lung cancer mortality was significantly associated with both emphysema (HR, 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06, 2.59) and with the combined endpoint of emphysema and chronic bronchitis (HR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.22, 4.90) in analyses that combined men and women. No association was observed with chronic bronchitis alone (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.72, 1.28) in the overall analysis, although the association was stronger in men (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.95, 2.66) than women (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.58, 1.16; p for interaction, 0.04). The association between emphysema and lung cancer was stronger in analyses that excluded early years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This large prospective study strengthens the evidence that increased lung cancer risk is associated with nonmalignant pulmonary conditions, especially emphysema, even in lifelong nonsmokers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".