Wedge Resection versus Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Tumors ≤8 mm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the overall survival of patients with ≤8 mm non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who undergo wedge resection versus stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Kaplan-Meier analysis, multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling, and propensity score-matched analysis were performed to evaluate the overall survival of patients with ≤8 mm NSCLC in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004 to 2017 who underwent wedge resection versus patients who underwent SBRT. The above-mentioned matched analyses were repeated for patients with no comorbidities. Patients who were coded in the NCDB as having undergone radiation because surgery was contraindicated due to patient risk factors (e.g., comorbid conditions, advance age, etc.) and those with a history of prior malignancy were excluded from analysis. Of the 1505 patients who had NSCLC ≤8 mm during the study period, 1339 (89%) patients underwent wedge resection, and 166 (11%) patients underwent SBRT. In the unadjusted analysis, multivariable Cox modeling and propensity score-matched analysis, wedge resection was associated with improved survival when compared to SBRT. These results were consistent in a sensitivity analysis limited to patients with no comorbidities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".