Risk model‐based management for second primary lung cancer among lung cancer survivors through a validated risk prediction model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Recent therapeutic advances and screening technologies have improved survival among patients with lung cancer, who are now at high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). Recently, an SPLC risk‐prediction model (called SPLC‐RAT) was developed and validated using data from population‐based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real‐world validation has been lacking. The predictive performance of SPLC‐RAT was evaluated in a hospital‐based cohort of lung cancer survivors. Methods The authors analyzed data from 8448 ever‐smoking patients diagnosed with initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1997–2006 at Mayo Clinic, with each patient followed for SPLC through 2018. The predictive performance of SPLC‐RAT and further explored the potential of improving SPLC detection through risk model‐based surveillance using SPLC‐RA T versus existing clinical surveillance guidelines. Results Of 8448 IPLC patients, 483 (5.7%) developed SPLC over 26,470 person‐years. The application of SPLC‐RAT showed high discrimination area under the receiver operating characteristics curve: 0.81). When the cohort was stratified by a 10‐year risk threshold of ≥5.6% (i.e., 80th percentile from the SPLC‐RAT development cohort), the observed SPLC incidence was significantly elevated in the high‐risk versus low‐risk subgroup (13.1% vs. 1.1%, p < 1 × 10 –6 ). The risk‐based surveillance through SPLC‐RAT (≥5.6% threshold) outperformed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines with higher sensitivity (86.4% vs. 79.4%) and specificity (38.9% vs. 30.4%) and required 20% fewer computed tomography follow‐ups needed to detect one SPLC (162 vs. 202). Conclusion In a large, hospital‐based cohort, the authors validated the predictive performance of SPLC‐RAT in identifying high‐risk survivors of SPLC and showed its potential to improve SPLC detection through risk‐based surveillance. Plain Language Summary Lung cancer survivors have a high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). However, no evidence‐based guidelines for SPLC surveillance are available for lung cancer survivors. Recently, an SPLC risk‐prediction model was developed and validated using data from population‐based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real‐world validation has been lacking. Using a large, real‐world cohort of lung cancer survivors, we showed the high predictive accuracy and risk‐stratification ability of the SPLC risk‐prediction model. Furthermore, we demonstrated the potential to enhance efficiency in detecting SPLC using risk model‐based surveillance strategies compared to the existing consensus‐based clinical guidelines, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it