Maternal and Fetal Outcomes in Pregnant Women with Lung Cancer: A Population-Based Study on 9 million pregnancies and 40 cases of lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung cancer during pregnancy is exceptionally rare, with only 93 reported cases from 1953 to 2024. Our study identified 40 cases of lung cancer during pregnancy from a 9 million patient database, contributing to a total to 133 documented instances in the literature, and the only powered case series. Using the HCUP-NIS database (2004-2014), we conducted a retrospective analysis comparing maternal and fetal outcomes in women with and without lung cancer. Results showed that pregnant women with lung cancer were older and had higher rates of smoking, chronic hypertension, and pregestational diabetes (P<0.01, all). Significant risks included placenta previa (OR: 5.67, 95% CI:1.36-23.65, p=0.017), abruptio placenta (OR: 4.99, 95% CI: 1.49-16.74, p=0.009), operative vaginal delivery (OR: 4.88, 95% CI: 2.14-11.11, p<0.001), and transfusion (OR: 8.92, 95% CI: 3.28-24.28, p<0.001). They also have markedly higher odds of venous thromboembolism (OR:21.83, 95% CI: 2.92-163.47, p<0.001), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR: 8.45, 95% CI: 1.14-62.42, p=0.04), and maternal death (OR: 195.02, 95% CI: 40.61-936.55, p<0.001), highlighting the necessity for specialized care and further research into this rare and complex condition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".