ArticlePloS one2025
Causal predictive modeling of survival of lung and bronchus cancer patients diagnosed during 2010-2011 in Texas.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung and Bronchus cancer is the most fatal type of cancer in the United States. According to the American Cancer Society, there were more than 127,000 deaths from lung cancer in 2023. Lung cancer care cost 23.8 billion dollars in 2020. In Texas, only 22.8% of lung cancer patients survived 5 years or more past diagnosis based on 2012-2018 data.
aimThis study evaluates the survival length of lung and bronchus cancer patients in Texas using advanced statistical and machine learning methods applied to an 11-year cohort study from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. It also quantifies the causal effect of early (localized) versus late (distant) stage at diagnosis on survival time of those patients. Additionally, it explores the influence of demographic and available clinical factors to assess disparities in survival across different groups. METHODOLOGY: We performed classical survival analyses, followed by causal survival analysis to study the average years lost among different patient groups. Additionally, we performed survival random forest and survival neural network modeling. Finally, we conducted causal inference and causal survival random forest to estimate and predict the average treatment effect of early-stage diagnosis on lung cancer patient survival.
resultsStage and age are the two most important factors in predicting the survival of patients with lung and bronchus cancer. Lung cancer patients diagnosed with the regional stage have about twice the risk of dying as those in the localized stage at any time, and this risk increases as the stage advances. We also find that the average extended lifetime of the localized stage group was about 4 years compared to survivors diagnosed with the distant stage. It can also extend the probability of survival by up to 50%.
conclusionOur study underscores the need for early screening, diagnosis and improving equity in lung cancer patients care, which could lead to improved outcomes and reduced mortality in this high-risk population. IMPACT: Understanding lung and bronchus cancer survival using advanced causal inference and predictive modeling techniques, highlights the critical importance of early-stage diagnosis, showing that patients diagnosed at localized stages have a substantially higher survival probability. This research underscores the necessity of promoting early screening and equitable cancer care to improve survival rates and healthcare outcomes for lung and bronchus cancer patients.
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.