Factors associated with concurrent malignancy risk among patients with incidental solitary pulmonary nodule: A systematic review taskforce for developing rapid recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between prespecified factors and the malignancy risk of solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) to support the development of rapid recommendations for daily use in the Chinese setting. METHODS: The expert panel for the rapid recommendations voted for 12 candidate factors based on published guidelines, selected publications, and clinical experiences. We then searched Medline, Embase, and Web of Science up to October 17, 2021, for studies investigating the association between these factors and the diagnosis of malignant SPNs in patients with CT-identified SPNs through multivariable regression analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Checklist. We pooled adjusted odds ratios (aOR) between candidate factors and the diagnosis of the malignant SPNs. RESULTS: A total of 32 cross-sectional studies were included. Nine factors were statistically associated with malignant SPNs: age (aOR 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.07), smoking history (2.83, 1.84-4.36), history of extrathoracic malignancy (5.66, 2.80-11.46), history of malignancy (4.64, 3.37-6.39), family history of malignancy (3.11, 1.66-5.83), nodule diameter (1.23, 1.17-1.31), spiculation (3.41, 2.64-4.41), lobulation (3.85, 2.47-6.01), and mixed ground-glass opacity (mGGO) density of the nodule (5.56, 2.47-12.52). No statistical association was found between family history of lung cancer, emphysema, nodule border, and malignant SPNs. CONCLUSION: Nine prespecified factors were associated with the concurrent malignancy risk among patients with SPNs. Risk stratification for SPNs is warranted in clinical practice.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
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 | 0.122 | 0.268 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".