Combination of Advanced Lung Cancer Inflammation Index and C-Reactive Protein Is a Prognostic Factor in Patients With Operable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous study of ours showed that advanced lung cancer inflammation index (ALI) and C-reactive protein (CRP) are independent significant prognostic factors in operable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Since both ALI and CRP are markers of inflammation, the aim of this study was to examine whether the combination of ALI and CRP is a prognostic indicator of resected NSCLC or not. METHODS: Three hundred forty-one NSCLC patients who underwent surgery at our institution between 2008 and 2012 were included. ALI score was calculated as BMI × ALB/NLR with BMI indicating body mass index, ALB indicating serum albumin and NLR indicating neutrophil lymphocyte ratio. The prognostic significance of the combination of ALI and CRP was evaluated. RESULTS: Compared to patients with high ALI (> 37.67) group, low ALI group had significantly poorer cancer-specific survival. Similarly, patients with high CRP (> 0.15 mg/dL) had poorer survival. Based on the combination of ALI and CRP, patients with high ALI and low CRP were assigned an ALI_CRP score of 0, those with both high or both low were assigned an ALI_CRP score of 1, and those with low ALI and high CRP were assigned an ALI_CRP score of 2. The patients' cancer-specific survival was significantly related to this ALI_CRP score. On multivariate analysis, gender, histology, pN status, serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level and the ALI_CRP score were associated independently with cancer-specific survival. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ALI and CRP is a useful predictor of overall survival and could be a simple prognostic tool to help identify operable NSCLC patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".