Association of Lung Cancer Risk With the Presence of Both Lung Nodules and Emphysema in a Lung Cancer Screening Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The coexistence of emphysema and lung nodules could interact with each other and then lead to potential higher lung cancer risk. The study aimed to explore the association between emphysema combined with lung nodules and lung cancer risk. Methods: A total of 21,949 participants from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) who underwent low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) examination were included. Participants were categorized into four groups (NENN group (non-emphysema and non-nodules), E group (emphysema without nodules), N group (nodules without emphysema), and E + N group (nodules with emphysema)) according to whether there were lung nodules and emphysema. Multivariable Cox regression and stratified analyses were performed to estimate the association between the four groups and lung cancer risk. Results: Among the 21,949 participants, there were 9,040 (41.2%), 5,819 (26.5%), 4,737 (21.6%), and 2,353 (10.7%) participants in the NENN group, E group, N group, and E + N group. The risk of lung cancer incidence increased in turn in NENN group, E group, N group and E + N group. Compared with NENN group, the age-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals (CIs)) of lung cancer incidence were 2.07 (1.69 - 2.54) for E group, 4.13 (3.47 - 5.05) for N group, and 6.26 (5.14 - 7.62) for E + N group. The association was robust to adjustment for potential confounders (1.83 (1.47 - 2.27) for E group, 3.97 (3.24 - 4.86) for N group, and 5.23 (4.28 - 6.48) for E + N group). Comparable results as the lung cancer incidence were observed for lung cancer mortality, whether in age-adjusted model (E group: 1.85 (1.39 - 2.46), N group: 2.49 (1.89 - 3.29), E + N group: 4.27 (3.21 - 5.68)) or fully adjusted model (E group: 1.56 (1.15 - 2.11), N group: 2.43 (1.81 - 3.26), E + N group: 3.39 (2.50 - 4.61)). However, the trend of all-cause mortality risk among the four groups was somewhat different from that of lung cancer risk, whether in age-adjusted model (1.37 (1.21 - 1.54) for E group, 1.06 (0.92 - 1.21) for N group, and 1.75 (1.51 - 2.02) for E + N group) or fully adjusted model (1.26 (1.10 - 1.44) for E group, 1.09 (0.94 - 1.27) for N group, and 1.52 (1.30 - 1.79) for E + N group). Conclusion: Based on a large-scale lung cancer screening trial in the United States, this study demonstrated that either emphysema or lung nodules can increase lung cancer risk, and lung nodules combined with emphysema can further increase the lung cancer risk and all-cause mortality. The significance of these findings for lung cancer screening should be evaluated.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".