ArticleScientific reports2025
Disentangling the effects of various risk factors and trends in lung cancer mortality.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung cancer is a leading cause of mortality in oncological classifications, yet the impact of various risk factors on lung cancer mortality (LCM) in non-smokers remains unclear. This study aims to weigh out the diverse impact of multiple risk factors on LCM rates and identify trends in LCM rates worldwide. We initially employed Random Forest Tree (RFT) and Gradient Boosting Regression (GBR) to identify common primary factors influencing LCM. After eliminating four common primary factors, a comparative analysis between partial and Pearson correlations was conducted to filter out significant factors in the correlations between risk factors and LCM rates across 204 countries from 2005 to 2019. The findings show that excluding the impacts of occupational exposure to arsenic, smoking, residential radon, occupational exposure to silica, occupational exposure to asbestos, high systolic blood pressure, secondhand smoke, child wasting, and alcohol use had a considerably greater impact on LCM than particular matter pollution (PM2.5). Furthermore, a Multiple Joinpoint Regression analysis identified increasing trends of LCM rates in the 142 countries (e.g., China and India); decreasing trends in 38 countries (e.g., Denmark and Norway), and stable trends in 24 countries (e.g., Sudan, Mali, and Australia). This research suggests that in addition to considering the effects of occupational exposure to arsenic, smoking, residential radon, and occupational exposure to silica on LCM rates, occupational exposure to asbestos, high systolic blood pressure, secondhand smoke, child wasting, and alcohol use should be considered in lung cancer prevention strategies, especially in countries with increasing trends of LCM rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.