MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111539826 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000023440

Clinic image surveillance reduces mortality in patients with primary hepato-gastrointestinal cancer who develop second primary lung cancer

2020· article· en· W3111539826 on OpenAlexaff
Hung-Yu Huang, Min-Wei Lu, Mei‐Chi Chen, Hsiu-Mei Chang, Chih‐Hsi S. Kuo, Shu‐Min Lin, Chun‐Hua Wang, Fu‐Tsai Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
FundersChang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerInternal medicineCancerMalignancyGastroenterologyGastrointestinal cancerStage (stratigraphy)LungSurvival rateOncologyColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Second primary cancer is prevalent in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, for which lung cancer is the most common and associated with high lethality. Image screening for lung cancer was proved to be effective in early diagnosis and lower mortality. However, trials of screen for lung cancer generally excluded patients with a previous diagnosis of malignancy. The study aimed to investigate the outcome of second primary lung cancer and the factor that improve survival in patients with hepato-GI cancer.A total of 276 patients with secondary lung cancer were found among 3723 newly-diagnosed lung cancer patients diagnosed in Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, between 2010 and 2014. Patients' clinical characteristics, stages and survival were recorded and analyzed. The patients were separated into 2 groups: Group I was defined as lung cancer detected in original primary cancer clinic and group II patients defined as lung cancer detected in other medical places.Sixty-nine cases with primary GI-hepatic and secondary lung cancer were diagnosed (42 (60.8%) in Group I and 27 (39.1%) in Group II). Although both groups had comparable primary cancer stages and treatment, more patients in Group I than Group II were diagnosed as early stage lung cancer (stage I-II: 40.5% vs 11.1%; P = .023). Group II had larger lung tumor sizes than Group I (4.7 vs 3.5 cm; P = .025). Group I showed better 5-year overall survival than Group II (P = .014, median survival: 27 vs 10 months). Among Group II, only 37% had received image follow up in clinic compared with 67% of Group I cases (P = .025). Patients with chest image follow up in clinics also had better 5-year overall survival (P = .043).GI-hepatic cancer was the most common primary malignancy in the lung cancer cohort. Patients had better survival outcome when secondary lung cancer was diagnosed in original primary cancer clinic. Chest image screening strategy may contribute better survival in secondary lung cancer due to detection at an earlier stage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicMultiple and Secondary Primary CancersFrench-language works237,207