Distinct Prognostic Factors of Ground Glass Opacity and Pure-Solid Lesion in Pathological Stage I Invasive Lung Adenocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ground glass opacity (GGO) is associated with favorable survival in lung cancer. However, the relevant evidence of the difference in prognostic factors between GGO and pure-solid nodules for pathological stage I invasive adenocarcinoma (IAC) is limited. We aimed to identify the impact of GGO on survival and find prognostic factor for part-GGO and pure-solid patients. Methods: Between December 2007 and August 2018, patients with pathological stage I IAC were retrospectively reviewed and categorized into the pure-GGO, part-GGO, and pure-solid groups. Survival curves were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank tests. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and Cox regression models were used to obtained prognostic factors for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: The number of patients with pure-GGO, part-GGO, and pure-solid was 134, 540, and 396, respectively. Part-GGO patients with consolidation-tumor-ratio (CTR) > 0.75 had similar outcome to those with pure-solid nodules. In part-GGO patients, CTR was negatively associated with OS (P = 0.007) and solid tumor size (STS) was negatively associated with DFS (P < 0.001). Visceral pleural invasion (VPI) was negatively associated with OS (P = 0.040) and DFS (P = 0.002). Sublobectomy was negatively associated with OS (P = 0.008) and DFS (P = 0.005), while extended N1 stations examination was associated with improved DFS (P = 0.005) in pure-solid patients. Conclusions: Though GGO component is a positively prognostic factors of patients with pathological stage I IAC, a small proportion of GGO components is not associated with favorable survival. VPI, STS and CTR are the significant predictors for part-GGO patients. Sublobectomy, especially wedge resection should be used cautiously in pure-solid patients.
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) | 0.001 | 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".