Reply from author: Systematic or targeted sampling during endobronchial ultrasound for mediastinal staging in patients with lung cancer and abnormal mediastinum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author reported no conflicts of interest.The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest. The author reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest. We thank Drs Sanz-Santos and colleagues1Sanz-Santos J. Serra P. Rosell A. Systematic or targeted sampling during endobronchial ultrasound for mediastinal 2 staging in patients with lung cancer and abnormal mediastinum.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Open. 2022; 11: 346-347Scopus (1) Google Scholar for their interest and comment on our most recent publication describing the feasibility of a randomized trial comparing systematic with targeted sampling during endobronchial ultrasound for mediastinal staging.2Sullivan K.A. Farrokhyar F. Leontiadis G.I. Patel Y.S. Churchill I.F. Hylton D.A. et al.Routine systematic sampling vs. targeted sampling during endobronchial ultrasound: a randomized feasibility trial.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022; 164: 254-261.e1Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (4) Google Scholar We agree with the authors of the letter that any interpretation of findings should be done with caution. The authors seem concerned that we are recommending targeted sampling. However, our study only aims to assess the safety and feasibility of a larger noninferiority crossover trial comparing targeted sampling with systematic sampling. Based on our results, the trial has met all safety milestones to proceed. As such, our recommendation was that it is safe to proceed with a larger trial, rather than a recommendation to adopt targeted sampling. I am delighted to disclose to the authors that the larger trial (National Clinical Trial 04342377) has now completed accrual and the results will be reported soon. We also would like to take the opportunity to make a distinction between patients with a radiologically normal mediastinum and those with abnormal findings. The authors are concerned, and correctly so, that we are recommending targeted sampling in patients with an abnormal mediastinum. However, our trial explicitly excludes patients with abnormal computed tomography and positron emission tomography findings, and subsequently only includes patients with a Canada Lymph Node Score of 1 or less.3Hylton D.A. Turner S. Kidane B. Spicer J. Xie F. Farrokhyar F. et al.The Canada Lymph Node Score for prediction of malignancy in mediastinal lymph nodes during endobronchial ultrasound.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020; 159: 2499-2507Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (25) Google Scholar As such, only patients with triple normal lymph nodes were included in this trial.4Hylton D.A. Kidane B. Spicer J. Turner S. Churchill I. Sullivan K. et al.Endobronchial ultrasound staging of operable non-small cell lung cancer: do triple normal lymph nodes require routine biopsy?.Chest. 2021; 156: 2470-2476Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (7) Google Scholar Triple normal lymph nodes have a malignancy rate of 5.6%, which is close to the incidence of missed nodal metastases on the feasibility trial and pathological analyses. The authors mention that it is well known that the sensitivity of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial fine-needle aspiration decreases in this setting, which is why we hypothesize that systematic sampling may not be required. We thank the authors for their letter and look forward to discussing the results of our subsequent trial. Systematic or targeted sampling during endobronchial ultrasound for mediastinal staging in patients with lung cancer and abnormal mediastinumJTCVS OpenVol. 11PreviewIn the recently published article by Sullivan and colleagues,1 the authors describe the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial that aims to compare targeted with systematic endobronchial ultrasound–guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) sampling for mediastinal staging in patients with lung cancer. The authors hypothesize that targeted EBUS-TBNA sampling is not inferior to systematic EBUS-TBNA. A targeted, selected, or “hit-and-run” EBUS-TBNA sampling is defined as a specific investigation for malignancy-suspected mediastinal nodes based on positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) findings (fluorodeoxyglucose avid or short axis ≥10 mm). Full-Text PDF Open Access
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.008 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".