MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284698039 · doi:10.1111/jebm.12481

Factors associated with concurrent malignancy risk among patients with incidental solitary pulmonary nodule: A systematic review taskforce for developing rapid recommendations

2022· review· en· W4284698039 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evidence-Based Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersSichuan Province Science and Technology Support Program
KeywordsMedicineMalignancyLung cancerOdds ratioNodule (geology)Confidence intervalChecklistFamily historyInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.184 · 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