ArticleScientific reports2026
The red cell distribution width to albumin ratio as a novel predictor of 180-day mortality in lung cancer patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Construction and validation of a prognostic prediction model for critically ill lung cancer patients based on respiratory functional reserve and systemic inflammatory characteristics.American journal of cancer research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The red cell distribution width-to-albumin ratio (RAR) integrates inflammation and nutritional compromise - two hallmarks of lung cancer progression. This study validates RAR as a predictor of long-term mortality in critically ill lung cancer patients, addressing gaps in conventional ICU prognostication. In this MIMIC-IV-based retrospective cohort, 973 lung cancer patients meeting ICU criteria were stratified by RAR quartiles (calculated as RDW-CV (%) / albumin (g/dL)). Primary and secondary endpoints were 180-day and 365-day all-cause mortality. Multivariable Cox regression (adjusted for demographics, severity scores, and interventions), restricted cubic splines (RCS), and ROC analysis (at the specified endpoint) evaluated RAR's predictive utility. Subgroup analysis tested interactions with disease severity. Among 973 critically ill lung cancer patients, those in the highest RAR quartile (6 ≤ RAR < 14.29) exhibited substantially elevated mortality compared to the lowest quartile: 66.4% versus 31.1% at 180 days (P < 0.001) and 73.4% versus 43.2% at 365 days (P < 0.001). Multivariable Cox regression confirmed RAR as an independent mortality predictor, with each unit increase in continuous RAR associated with 20% higher 180-day risk (HR = 1.20, 95%CI 1.14-1.27) and 19% higher 365-day risk (HR = 1.19, 95%CI 1.13-1.25), while patients in the highest quartile faced more than doubled mortality hazard versus the lowest quartile (180-day HR = 2.32, 95%CI 1.74-3.09; 365-day HR = 2.07, 95%CI 1.60-2.67). Restricted cubic spline analysis demonstrated a linear dose-response relationship between rising RAR and mortality risk (P < 0.001). RAR significantly outperformed SOFA in discriminative accuracy for both endpoints (180-day AUC 0.65 (95%CI 0.62-0.69) vs. 0.56 (95%CI 0.53-0.60); 365-day AUC 0.64 (95%CI 0.60-0.67) vs. 0.55 (95%CI 0.51-0.59)). Subgroup analyses revealed diminished predictive utility in high-severity patients (SOFA ≥ 5; P = 0.006), though robustness persisted across other clinical strata. RAR is a robust, accessible predictor of long-term mortality in lung cancer ICU patients. Its strong discriminative ability (> 65% mortality at 6 ≤ RAR < 14.29) supports clinical utility for early risk stratification, particularly before multi-organ failure develops.
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.