Is limited pulmonary resection equivalent to lobectomy for surgical management of stage I non-small-cell lung cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: is limited pulmonary resection equivalent to lobectomy in terms of morbidity, long-term survival and locoregional recurrence in patients with stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)? A total of 166 papers were found using the reported search; of which, 16 papers, including one meta-analysis and one randomized control trial (RCT), represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. With regards to 5-year survival rates, the evidence is conflicting: a 2005 meta-analysis and six other retrospective or prospective nonrandomized analyses did not find any statistically significant difference when comparing lobectomy with limited resection. However, three studies found evidence of a decreased overall survival with limited resection, including the only randomized control trial, which showed a 50% increase in the cancer-related death rate (P = 0.09), and a 30% increase in the overall death rate in patients undergoing limited resection (P = 0.08). Age, tumour size and specific type of limited resection were also factors influencing the survival rates. Four studies, including the RCT, found increased locoregional recurrence rates with limited resection. There is also evidence that wedge resections, compared with segmentectomies, lead to lower survival and higher recurrence rates. In conclusion, lobectomy is still recommended for younger patients with adequate cardiopulmonary function. Although limited resection carries a decreased rate of complications and shorter hospital stays, it may also carry a higher rate of loco-regional recurrences. However, limited resection may be comparable for patients >71 years of age, and those with small peripheral tumours.
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 | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".