MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410202529 · doi:10.1016/j.clinsp.2025.100669

Risk factors for the growth of ground-glass nodules in the lungs: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4410202529 on OpenAlex
Hongxin Cao

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicinePsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The growth of ground-glass nodules in the lungs is an independent risk factor for the occurrence of lung cancer, which provides the basic conditions for the occurrence of lung cancer. However, risk factors for the growth of ground-glass nodules in the lungs have not been fully identified. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess risk factors for the growth of ground-glass nodules in the lungs. METHODS: Computerized searches of the electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Scopus for published studies on risk factors for the growth of ground-glass nodules in the lungs. The search time limit is from the establishment of the database to March 2024. Two review authors independently searched the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the quality of the selected studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and RevMan 5.4 software was used for meta-analysis. This review is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (identifier CRD42024499763). RESULTS: Fourteen studies involving 2059 patients were included, and 14 statistically significant risk factors were identified. The results of meta-analysis showed that age (WMD = 4.61, 95 % CI [1.73∼7.49], p = 0.002), female (OR = 0.65, 95 % CI [0.51∼0.82], p = 0.0003), history of smoking (OR = 1.76, 95 % CI [1.07∼2.92], p = 0.03), history of malignancy (OR = 1.53, 95 % CI [1.16∼2.02], p = 0.003), lesion size (≥ 8 mm) (OR = 1.19, 95 % CI [1.12∼1.26], p < 0.00001), air bronchial sign (OR = 6.09, 95 % CI [3∼12.33], p < 0.00001), lobulation sign (OR = 2.3, 95 % CI [1.58∼3.36], p < 0.00001), spiculated sign (OR = 5.56, 95 % CI [1.39∼22.3], p = 0.02), vascular bundle sign [OR = 2.54, 95 % CI [1.85∼3.48], p < 0.00001), initial diameter (≥ 8 mm) (OR = 1.89, 95 % CI [1.34∼2.67], p = 0.0003), vacuolar sign (OR = 2.62, 95 % CI [1.46∼4.69], p = 0.001), solid nodules (OR = 4.6, 95 % CI [1.96∼10.79], p = 0.0005), solid components (OR = 13.77, 95 % CI [7.08∼26.78], p < 0.00001) and nodule roundness (OR = 2.85, 95 % CI [1.19∼6.81], p = 0.02) were risk factors for the growth of ground-glass nodules in the lungs. However, pleural adhesion (p = 0.47) and pleural retraction (p = 0.07) were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that there are many risk factors for the growth of ground-glass nodules in the lungs, and medical staff should identify the above risk factors as early as possible in clinical work and formulate targeted interventions for precise prevention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it