Tertiary lymphoid structures in lung adenocarcinoma: characteristics and related factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Tertiary lymphoid structures (TLSs) are found in a variety of malignancies and affect the growth of tumors, but few studies have addressed their role in lung adenocarcinoma (LAC). We aimed to evaluate clinical features associated with TLSs in patients with LAC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A collection of resected pulmonary nodules in patients with LAC was retrospectively analyzed. TLSs were quantified by their number per square millimeter tumor area (density) and by the degree of lymphocyte aggregation (maturity) in each case. The correlation between TLS density and maturity and clinical features was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 243 patients were selected, of whom 219 exhibited TLSs. The occurrence of TLSs was correlated with computed tomography (CT) features as follows: pure ground-glass nodules (pGGNs) (n = 43) was associated with a lower occurrence rate than part-solid nodules (PSNs) (n = 112) and solid nodules (SNs) were (n = 88) (p = 0.037). TLS density was correlated with age and CT features. Poisson regression showed higher TLS density in PSNs and SNs than in pGGNs (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 3.137; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35-7.27; p = 0.008 and IRR: 2.44; 95% CI: 1.02-5.85; p = 0.046, respectively). In addition, TLS density was higher in patients aged under 60 years than in those aged over 60 years (IRR: 0.605; 95% CI: 0.4-0.92; p = 0.018). The maturity of TLSs was higher in patients with higher tumor stages (p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated distinct profiles of TLSs in early LAC and their correlations with CT features, age, and tumor stages, which could help understand tumor progression and management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".