Diagnostic Value of Epidermal Growth Factor, Cancer Antigen 125, and Cancer Antigen 15-3 in Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid of Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: In the present study, we assessed the diagnostic value of epidermal growth factor (EGF) and cancer antigens 125 (CA125) and 15-3 (CA15-3) in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) of lung cancer from 79 enrolled patients with suspected lung cancer. Methods: All patients underwent fibrescopic examination, during which BALF samples were collected. Levels of EGF, CA125, and CA15-3 were determined in BALF using commercially available test kits. Results: The results showed that levels of EGF in BALF were significantly higher in patients with lung cancer than in patients with benign diseases (p < 0.01); no significant differences for CA125 (p = 0.67) or CA15-3 (p = 0.43) in BALF were observed between the lung cancer patients and the non-cancer control subjects. With a cut-off value of 27.22 pg/mL, EGF showed a sensitivity of 63.6% and a specificity of 65.7% in predicting the malignant nature of pulmonary disease. Conclusions: The study findings suggest that levels of EGF are significantly increased in BALF from patients with lung cancer than in BALF from patients with benign disease. Detection of the level of EGF in BALF is proposed as a noninvasive test to identify patients at high risk for lung cancer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".