Risk factors for the growth of ground-glass nodules in the lungs: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".