ArticleBMC surgery2025
Development and internal validation of a preoperative prediction model for postoperative pneumonia in lung cancer patients: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prediction of pulmonary infection during chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: development and internal validation of a nomogram.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the postoperative pneumonia (POP) risk of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), identify influencing factors, develop a LASSO regression-based model to predict POP risk and identify critical influencing factors.
methodsThis retrospective analysis included patients with NSCLC who underwent surgery at our hospital from 2021 to 2024. Potential predictors spanning demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative biomarkers were evaluated. LASSO regression screened variables, followed by logistic regression to construct the model. Model performance was assessed via Area Under the Curve (AUC), Sensitivity (SEN), Specificity (SPE), Accuracy, Positive predictive value (PPV), F1-score, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA).
resultsA total of 457 patients were included, with 64 (14%) developing POP. Patients were randomly allocated in a 7:3 ratio to training (n=323) and validation (n=134) cohorts. The model demonstrated acceptable yet moderate discriminatory power, with an AUC of 0.832 in the validation set. However, it exhibited high specificity (0.941) at the cost of low sensitivity (0.438), indicating a limitation in identifying all POP cases. The validation accuracy was 0.881. A nomogram was developed to visualize the model for clinical use.
conclusionThe developed model shows potential for identifying a subset of patients at very high risk of POP due to its high specificity. However, its clinical utility is currently limited by its low sensitivity and is threshold-dependent. It may serve as a component of a broader risk assessment strategy rather than a stand-alone clinical screening tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.