Primary clear cell adenocarcinoma of the lung: a national analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Primary clear cell adenocarcinoma of the lung (CCAL) is a rare form of lung cancer with poorly understood clinical features. We sought to investigate the clinicopathological characteristics and independent prognostic factors of primary CCAL. Methods: Overall survival (OS) of patients with CCAL in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004 to 2017 was compared to lung adenocarcinoma using Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling, and propensity score matching. Independent prognostic indicators for patients with CCAL were determined using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis. Results: A total of 1,396 CCAL and 462,360 lung adenocarcinoma patients were incorporated into our analysis. When compared to patients diagnosed with lung adenocarcinoma, those diagnosed with CCAL were more likely to be younger, white, reside farther from a hospital, have higher Charlson/Deyo comorbidity condition (CDCC) scores, private insurance, earlier year diagnosis, T1, N0, M0 status, more poorly differentiated tumors, earlier stage disease, and were more likely to undergo surgery and less likely to undergo chemotherapy and radiation. In unadjusted analysis, patients with CCAL had better survival than those with lung adenocarcinoma, although no significant differences in survival were found with multivariable Cox proportional hazards and propensity score-matched analyses. Independent predictors of survival for patients with CCAL were sex, comorbidities, M status, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, and treatment with surgery. Conclusions: In this national analysis, we found that the clinicopathological characteristics of CCAL are distinct from those of lung adenocarcinoma, but CCAL is not itself an independent predictor of survival after multivariable adjustment or propensity score-matched analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".