MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004364497 · doi:10.1097/lbr.0000000000000645

The Diagnostic Accuracy and Sensitivity for Malignancy of Radial-Endobronchial Ultrasound and Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy for Sampling of Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions

2020· review· en· W3004364497 on OpenAlexaff
Anna McGuire, Renelle Myers, Kyle Grant, Stephen Lam, John Yee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerMalignancyRadiologyBronchoscopyConfidence intervalMeta-analysisLung cancer screeningSampling (signal processing)Nuclear medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening with computed tomography chest is identifying peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs) suspicious for early-stage lung cancer at increasing rates. Radial-endobronchial ultrasound (R-EBUS) and electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) are 2 methods to sample PPLs to diagnose and treat early lung cancer. ENB has a higher operating financial cost, however, the rationale for its use is possible higher diagnostic accuracy versus R-EBUS. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the comparative diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value for R-EBUS and ENB in sampling PPLs. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. The Ovid Medline database was queried for original research reporting a diagnostic yield of R-EBUS or ENB for PPLs identified on computed tomography chest suspicious for malignancy. The I statistic assessed study heterogeneity. Random effects models produced pooled estimates of diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity for malignancy. Reasons for heterogeneity were explored with meta-regression. Publication bias and small study effects were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 41 studies involved 2988 lung nodules (R-EBUS 2102, ENB 886) in 3204 patients (R-EBUS 2097, ENB 1107). Overall sensitivity to detect cancer was 70.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 67.2-74.0]; R-EBUS 70.5% (95% CI: 66.1-74.8), ENB 70.7% (95% CI: 64.7-76.8). Pooled overall diagnostic accuracy was 74.2% (95% CI: 71.0-77.3); R-EBUS 72.4% (95% CI: 68.7-76.1), ENB 76.4% (95% CI: 70.8-82.0). The localization modalities had comparative safety profiles of <2% complications. CONCLUSION: Both technologies have a high proportion of successful PPL localization with similar sensitivity for malignancy and accuracy. As such, both reasonable options for health care authorities to employ diagnostic algorithms.

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)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.187
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.187
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.035
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations60
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bronchology & Interventional PulmonologySame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207