Observational studyPloS one2026
Stage-driven mortality and clinical risk stratification among lung cancer patients in Dhaka, Bangladesh: A multi-hospital secondary analysis.
Observational study in PloS one, 2026. 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
introductionLung cancer is a major cause of cancer mortality, and patient-level outcome data from Bangladesh remain limited. Locally relevant, interpretable risk-stratification models may help identify patients with higher recorded mortality risk using routinely available clinical variables. This study evaluated mortality-associated factors and the hospital-wise internal-external validation performance of a clinical risk-stratification model among lung cancer patients in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
methodsWe performed a retrospective secondary analysis of a publicly available, de-identified multi-hospital dataset comprising 1,782 patients. The primary endpoint was recorded binary mortality status, defined from the source variable survived (No = mortality event; Yes = no recorded mortality event). Multivariable logistic regression was used for association analysis. A hospital-agnostic logistic prediction model was evaluated using leave-one-hospital-out internal-external validation. Discrimination was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration by Brier score, calibration intercept and slope, and predicted-risk deciles, and potential clinical utility by decision curve analysis.
resultsAmong 1,782 patients, 770 (43.2%) were recorded as survived = No. Recorded mortality increased across cancer stages: 16.3% in Stage I, 32.5% in Stage II, 55.6% in Stage III, and 79.2% in Stage IV. Compared with Stage I, adjusted odds ratios were 2.54 (95% CI 1.86 to 3.46) for Stage II, 6.66 (95% CI 4.86 to 9.14) for Stage III, and 20.77 (95% CI 14.46 to 29.83) for Stage IV. Surgery was associated with lower adjusted odds than chemotherapy (adjusted OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89). Apparent AUROC was 0.769; pooled leave-one-hospital-out AUROC was 0.753 with a Brier score of 0.198. Pooled calibration yielded an intercept of -0.031 and slope of 0.911. At the evaluated 0.05 increments, the model had greater net benefit than treat-all and treat-none strategies from approximately 0.20 to 0.75.
conclusionRecorded mortality in this multi-hospital Bangladeshi lung cancer dataset was strongly stage-driven. An interpretable logistic risk model showed moderate discrimination and reasonable calibration across hospital-wise internal-external validation. These findings support further evaluation of routinely available clinical risk stratification, but independent external and prospective validation are required before clinical implementation.
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.