Prevalence and management of pulmonary nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pulmonary nodules are small, focal lesions often identified via computed tomography (CT) scans. Although the majority are benign, a small percentage of them may be malignant or potentially become malignant, underscoring the importance of early detection and effective management. This study systematically reviews the epidemiology, risk factors, and management strategies for pulmonary nodules, comparing findings across Chinese and non-Chinese populations to better inform the actuarial calculations for predicting the demand of medical services for patients with pulmonary nodules. Methods: We performed a systematic analysis of the PubMed and China Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases for studies reporting the detection rate of pulmonary nodules through CT scans. Both cross-sectional studies and the baseline data from longitudinal studies were included. A modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias and random effect models were used to estimate the overall prevalence. Results: We identified 32 studies and included 24 of them in our meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that the overall prevalence of pulmonary nodules was 0.27 (95% confidence interval: 0.25-0.29) after outliers removal. Subgroup analysis showed that there was no significant difference for prevalence between Chinese and non-Chinese populations. Males (0.38) were shown to have slightly higher prevalence compared to females (0.36), but not significant (P=0.88). Age and smoking are the most frequently reported risk factors by studies. Conclusions: Overall, 27% of participants were positive for pulmonary nodules. Advancing age and smoking were consistently identified as a key risk factor for the incidence of pulmonary nodules. Although the management strategies are different across studies, recent guidelines recommend personalized management strategies, prioritizing nodule size, characteristics, and individual risk factors to optimize outcomes.
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) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".