MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Utility of Brock model for risk stratification in patients with high-risk pulmonary nodules: A single center study.

2023· article· en· W4379280931 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sabah Iqbal, Bohdan Baralo, Akhil Jain, Krishna Desai, Keerthy Joseph, Mahvish Renzu, Vidhi Mehta, Shrikanth Sampath, Kristal Pereira, Sohiel Deshpande, Vinay Edlukudige Keshava, Rajesh Thirumaran

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNodule (geology)MalignancyLung cancerLung cancer screeningRadiologyRadiological weaponPopulationLungReceiver operating characteristicInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e18824 Background: Owing to the widespread implementation of low-dose CT screening (LDCT), an increasing number of pulmonary nodules are being identified. Per LDCT lung cancer screening protocol, radiologists assign Lung-RADS (LR) scores ranging from 1-4 with L1-2 being at low risk and L3-4 being at intermediate to high risk of malignancy. The Brock model derived from the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer screening study is a mathematical model that incorporates both clinical (age, sex, family history of lung cancer) and radiological (emphysema, nodule size, location of nodule in the upper lobe, nodule type, nodule count and spiculation) factors to predict the risk of lung cancer, but is not commonly used in the United States. The goal of our study was to estimate whether a higher Brock score can be used to further stratify malignancy potential in patients with LR≥3. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis at Mercy Catholic Medical Center, where we reviewed LDCT findings of 1090 patients, performed between 1/1/2018 - 6/30/2021 and identified 82 patients with LR≥3. Brock Model was used to calculate the malignancy probability of these pulmonary nodules. All patients were followed until biopsy, resolution of nodule or stability on follow-up imaging. In patients with multiple pulmonary nodules, probability was estimated for the largest nodule. An analysis of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was performed to evaluate efficiency of Brock model in our study population (using GraphPad Prism). We used the British Thoracic Society’s suggested threshold of 10% malignancy risk. Results: 82 patients (43 females and 39 males) were found to have pulmonary nodules with LR≥3. Among these, 10 patients were lost to follow-up and excluded from this study. Out of the 38 patients with LR 4, 16 patients had biopsy-proven lung cancer, 22 patients were found to have benign nodules. Among 34 patients with LR 3, only 3 were found to have lung cancer on follow-up. The mean calculated malignancy risk percentage was 6.69% for benign nodules (n = 51), but 27.14% for malignant nodules (n = 18). The calculated AUC in our study population was 0.85 (95%, CI 0.75-0.95, p < 0.0001). At 10% threshold, sensitivity and specificity were 78.95% and 83.02%, respectively. Conclusions: Based on our data, this model can be used to further assess risk of lung cancer in patients with intermediate to high-risk lung nodules (LR≥3). Similar to the use of Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail models in assessing risk of breast cancer, we may be able to use the Brock Model in predicting malignancy risk of lung nodules. However, a larger study is needed to estimate specific cut-offs. This can potentially lower the need for biopsies in lower risk groups and warrant more aggressive work-up and early diagnosis in higher risk populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging→French-language works237,207→