The prognostic impact of decreased pretreatment haemoglobin level on the survival of patients with lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many studies have reported the prognostic value of haemoglobin level for cancers. Whereas the prognostic impact of decreased pretreatment haemoglobin level on the survival of patients with lung cancer remains controversial, herein, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to investigate whether a decreased haemoglobin level before treatment is a significant predictor of survival in patients with lung cancer. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to evaluate the prognostic impact of a decreased haemoglobin level on the survival of patients with lung cancer. Relevant studies were retrieved from databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Reference lists were hand-searched for potentially eligible studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of included studies. Observational studies were included if they provided sufficient information for the extraction of the pooled hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for overall survival, disease-free survival, relapse-free survival, progression-free survival, event-free survival and time to progression. Subgroup analysis, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were applied to explain the heterogeneity. RESULTS: Fifty-five articles involving a total of 22,719 patients were obtained to evaluate the correlation between haemoglobin level and survival. The results indicated that decreased haemoglobin level was significantly associated with poor overall survival of patients with lung cancer (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.42-1.61), both in non-small cell lung cancer (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.44-1.72) and in small cell lung cancer (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.02). We also found that the lower the haemoglobin level, the shorter was the overall survival of patients with lung cancer (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06-1.16). However, the relationship between decreased haemoglobin and relapse-free survival was not significant (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.91-2.05). CONCLUSION: A decreased pretreatment haemoglobin level among patients with lung cancer is a prognostic factor of poor survival that can serve as an important indicator in survival prediction, risk stratification and treatment selection. In clinical practice, more attention should be paid to monitoring pretreatment haemoglobin levels among patients with 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".