Incidence of pulmonary embolism and its risk factors in lung cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pulmonary embolism (PE) not only threatens quality of life (QOL) but also poses a direct threat to life itself. This study was aimed at evaluating the incidence of PE and its risk factors in LC patients by meta-analysis (MA). METHODS: A search was done in electronic databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). MA was conducted using Stata16.0. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were included with a sample size of 216,344 in total. The incidence of PE in LC patients was 8.3% (95% CI 6.9%-9.6%). Risk factors for PE in LC patients included adenocarcinoma as a pathologic type (OR = 2.61, 95% CI 1.87-5.11), the advanced stage as a tumor stage (OR = 2.15, 95% CI 1.90-3.63), chemotherapy (OR = 2.42, 95% CI 1.86-3.72), concomitant DVT (OR = 4.42,95% CI 2.56-11.68), hemoglobin ≥ 140 g/L (OR = 2.25, 95% CI 2.10-4.60), D-dimer ≥ 500 mmol/L (OR = 4.27, 95% CI 1.76-24.34), and elevated CEA (OR = 2.69, 95% CI 1.85-3.93). CONCLUSION: PE is a common complication in LC patients. Close follow-up and a comprehensive screening program are important, especially for high-risk patients who receive chemotherapy or have advanced cancer, adenocarcinoma, concomitant DVT, or high levels of hemoglobin/D-dimer/CEA.
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 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) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it