Routine Neuroimaging in Patients with Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Single Center Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus in current practice guidelines regarding routine neuroimaging in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without neurologic symptoms, and there is a paucity of data on the impact of such imaging on overall survival (OS). METHODS: (IUCPQ). The primary objective of this study was to compare the evolution of patients with stage IV NSCLC who had baseline brain imaging versus with who did not. Secondary objectives were to determine the proportion of patients who underwent brain imaging in their initial investigation and the proportion of patients who developed metachronous central nervous system (CNS) metastasis. RESULTS: CNS imaging, mainly with computed tomography (CT), was performed at diagnosis in 56% of patients, and the prevalence of synchronous CNS metastasis among these patients was 32%. There was no difference in median OS between patients who underwent initial CNS imaging and those who did not, but we did show a tendency for a higher cumulative incidence of metachronous CNS metastasis in patients without baseline imaging. These metachronous metastases were symptomatic and were more often not treated when compared to synchronous metastases. CONCLUSIONS: In this small, unicentric retrospective study, there was no benefit with routine neuroimaging in terms of median OS in stage IV NSCLC patients without neurologic symptoms.
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".