MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150049322 · doi:10.1093/jnci/95.3.243

RESPONSE: Re: Sex-Related Differences in Bronchial Epithelial Changes Associated With Tobacco Smoking

2003· article· en· W2150049322 on OpenAlexaffabout
Su Datt Lam, Adi F. Gazdar

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTobacco useEnvironmental healthMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a sex difference in the distribution of histologic subtypes of lung cancer worldwide (1). In the United States and Canada, squamous cell carcinoma accounts for approximately 37% of the lung cancers in men but only 20% of the lung cancers in women. In Europe, a similar sex difference was observed (approximately 47% in men versus 27% in women). We discussed in our previous report that “in women, the major histologic lung cancer cell type found is adenocarcinoma, whereas, until recently, in men the predominant cell type was squamous cell carcinoma… . Most adenocarcinomas arise from epithelial cells in the peripherally located bronchi, bronchioles, and alveoli that are beyond the range of an adult-size fiberoptic bronchoscope” (2). The lower prevalence of preinvasive bronchial lesions in the central airways of women (14% versus 31% in men), most of which are precursors of squamous cell carcinoma, closely reflects reality. In our updated, larger cohort of 721 smokers older than 45 years, a similar, statistically significant sex difference in the prevalence of preinvasive lesions was observed, whether we use our previous definition of preinvasive lesion or the more restrictive definition suggested by Paris et al. (Table 1). With our definition, a lower prevalence in women (odds ratio = 0.7) was also observed by Paris et al. Their results confirm our observations, although the differences that they observed did not reach statistical significance, probably because of their skewed study population and comparatively smaller sample size. Although our previous study included only healthy volunteer smokers, Paris et al. included patients with cured invasive lung cancer, patients with synchronous invasive lung cancer, and smokers who were exposed to occupational carcinogens and who had a statistically significantly higher prevalence of preinvasive lesions. By including women who had or were more prone to develop these lesions, it should not be surprising that different results are observed. Furthermore, the sex difference in the prevalence of preinvasive lesions in the central airways is not equivalent to overall cancer risk differences between men and women. In former smokers, although the cumulative lifetime risk of lung cancer does not continue to increase as it does in current smokers, a substantial risk persists in those who stop smoking after the age of 50 years (3,4). Approximately 50% of the patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer are now former smokers, many of whom had given up smoking for at least 5 years (5). Our previous observation that the prevalence of preinvasive lesions did not change substantially for more than 10 years after cessation of smoking is in keeping with this observed persistent risk. However, our data should not be interpreted as showing an equal risk between former and current smokers. With continual exposure to tobacco smoke carcinogens, the risk of lung cancer is higher for current smokers because more preinvasive lesions will form and the lesions are more likely to progress to invasive cancer. Data from a cross-sectional study such as ours are not at odds with longitudinal studies that show a lower lifetime risk of lung cancer in former smokers. In summary, we believe the relatively modest disagreements between the study by Paris et al. and ours were caused by differences in study populations and the different interpretation by Paris et al. of published reports. Sex differences in the prevalence of preinvasive bronchial lesions

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0160.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0890.040

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207