MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7070444964

Prevalence and Clinical Relevance of Abnormal Ventilation in Lung Cancer Patients prior to Lung Resection

2024· dissertation· en· W7070444964 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLung cancerVentilation (architecture)Clinical significancePulmonary function testingLungAirway obstructionPneumonectomyMechanical ventilation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Despite the use of modern minimally invasive surgical techniques, post-operative complications following lung cancer resection remain common and challenging to predict. Pulmonary ventilation imaging modalities offer detailed regional assessment of airflow obstruction and are highly sensitive to subclinical airway and/or parenchymal disease. Nevertheless, ventilation imaging is seldom integrated into pre-operative lung function assessment and risk stratification procedures. Therefore, the objective of this thesis was to quantify the burden of ventilation defects observed by Technegas SPECT and 129Xe MRI before lung cancer resection and establish their association with the occurrence and clinical impact of post-operative complications. METHODS: Patients undergoing lung cancer resection at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton were recruited into a prospective, proof-of-concept, six-week observational study. Participants were evaluated prior to resection surgery to document baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, performed standard pulmonary function tests and sputum induction, and underwent Technegas SPECT and 129Xe MRI to assess ventilation. Abnormal ventilation was quantified as the ventilation defect percent (VDP) and was considered abnormal if VDP was ≥mean+2 standard deviations of a healthy population. Following surgery, participants were followed for 4 weeks to document the incidence of post-operative complications, as specified by the Ottawa TM&M categorization system, and the length of hospital stay. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-three participants were enrolled, of whom 103 were evaluated pre-operatively and followed for post-operative outcomes. Of the 103 participants (69±8 years, 58% female), 89% (92/103) underwent minimally invasive surgery, and 74% (76/103) underwent lobectomy. Abnormal ventilation was observed pre-operatively by Technegas SPECT and 129Xe MRI for 59% (58/99) and 84% (82/98) of participants, respectively. In a subset of 69 participants in whom sputum was collected, 51% (35/69) had intraluminal inflammation. A total of 64 post-operative complications occurred; 16 (25%) were pulmonary, and 48 (75%) were pleural complications. A post-operative complication occurred in 42% (41/103) of participants. Pre-operative Technegas SPECT and 129Xe MRI VDP were higher for participants with post-operative complications compared to those without (Technegas SPECT: 26±17% vs 19±7%, p=0.02; 129Xe MRI: 13±12% vs 7±6% p=0.003) and were positively correlated with post-operative length of hospital stay (Technegas SPECT: r=0.43, p<0.0001; 129Xe MRI: r=0.49, p<0.0001). Multivariable regression models revealed that preoperative Technegas SPECT and 129Xe MRI VDP were predictors of post-operative complications (Technegas SPECT: Odds ratio=1.08, p=0.005; 129Xe MRI: Odds ratio=1.16, p=0.002) and post-operative length of hospital stay (Technegas SPECT: unstandardized β=0.13, p<0.001; 129Xe MRI: unstandardized β=0.24, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal ventilation, quantified by Technegas SPECT and 129Xe MRI VDP, is prevalent prior to lung cancer resection and a predictor of post-operative complications and length of hospital stay.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)→Same topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→