Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Positive Findings of Preoperative Flexible Bronchoscopy in Patients with Peripheral Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: It has yet to be determined whether preoperative flexible bronchoscopy (FB) should be routinely performed in patients with peripheral lung cancer. The aim of this study was to construct a model to predict the probability of positive FB findings, which would help assess the necessity of preoperative FB. (2) Methods: A total of 380 consecutive patients with peripheral lung cancer who underwent preoperative FB were recruited for this study. A prediction model was developed through univariate and multivariate logistic regression, with predictors including gender, age, body mass index (BMI), smoking, history of chronic lung diseases, respiratory symptoms, lesion size, lesion type, lesion location in the bronchi, and lesion location in the lobe. The predictive performance of the model was evaluated by validation using 1000 iterations of bootstrap resampling. Model discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), and calibration was assessed using the Brier score and calibration plots. (3) Results: The model suggested that male patients with respiratory symptoms, decreased BMI, solid lesions, and lesions located in lower-order bronchi were more likely to have positive FB findings. The AUC and Brier score of the model for internal validation were 0.784 and 0.162, respectively. The calibration curve for the probability of positive FB findings showed convincing concordance between the predicted and actual results. (4) Conclusions: Our prediction model estimated the pretest probability of positive FB findings in patients with peripheral lung cancers. Males and patients with lower BMI, the presence of respiratory symptoms, larger lesions, solid lesions, and lesions located in lower-order bronchi were associated with increased positive FB findings. The use of our model can be of assistance when making clinical decisions about preoperative FB.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".