Publications

The etiology of lung Cancer in never-smokers remains elusive, despite 15% of lung Cancer cases in men and 53% in women worldwide being unrelated to smoking. Here, we aimed to enhance our understanding of lung Cancer pathogenesis among never-smokers using untargeted Metabolomics. This nested case-control study included 395 never-smoking women who developed lung Cancer and 395 matched never-smoking Cancer-free women from the prospective Shanghai Women’s Health Study with 15,353 metabolic features quantified in pre-diagnostic plasma using liquid chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry. Recognizing that metabolites often correlate and seldom act independently in biological processes, we utilized a weighted correlation network analysis to agnostically construct 28 network modules of correlated metabolites. Using conditional logistic regression models, we assessed the associations for both metabolic network modules and individual metabolic features with lung Cancer, accounting for multiple testing using a false discovery rate (FDR) < 0.20. We identified a network module of 121 features inversely associated with all lung Cancer (p = .001, FDR = 0.028) and lung adenocarcinoma (p = .002, FDR = 0.056), where lyso-glycerophospholipids played a key role driving these associations. Another module of 440 features was inversely associated with lung adenocarcinoma (p = .014, FDR = 0.196). Individual metabolites within these network modules were enriched in biological pathways linked to oxidative stress, and energy metabolism. These pathways have been implicated in previous Metabolomics studies involving populations exposed to known lung Cancer risk factors such as traffic-related air pollution and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Our results suggest that untargeted plasma Metabolomics could provide novel insights into the etiology and risk factors of lung Cancer among never-smokers.

Keywords: lung Cancer; Metabolomics; network analysis; never‐smokers; oxidative stress.

© 2024 UICC. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Copyright: © 2023 Kundu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Epigenetic researchers often evaluate DNA methylation as a potential mediator of the effect of social/Environmental Exposures on a health outcome. Modern statistical methods for jointly evaluating many mediators have not been widely adopted. We compare seven methods for high-dimensional mediation analysis with continuous outcomes through both diverse simulations and analysis of DNAm data from a large multi-ethnic Cohort in the United States, while providing an R package for their seamless implementation and adoption. Among the considered choices, the best-performing methods for detecting active mediators in simulations are the Bayesian sparse linear mixed model (BSLMM) and high-dimensional mediation analysis (HDMA); while the preferred methods for estimating the global mediation effect are high-dimensional linear mediation analysis (HILMA) and principal component mediation analysis (PCMA). We provide guidelines for epigenetic researchers on choosing the best method in practice and offer suggestions for future methodological development.

Copyright: © 2023 Clark-Boucher et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Importance: Natural language processing tools, such as ChatGPT (generative pretrained transformer, hereafter referred to as chatbot), have the potential to radically enhance the accessibility of medical information for health professionals and patients. Assessing the safety and efficacy of these tools in answering physician-generated questions is critical to determining their suitability in clinical settings, facilitating complex decision-making, and optimizing health care efficiency. Objective: To assess the accuracy and comprehensiveness of chatbot-generated responses to physician-developed medical queries, highlighting the reliability and limitations of artificial intelligence-generated medical information. Design, setting, and participants: Thirty-three physicians across 17 specialties generated 284 medical questions that they subjectively classified as easy, medium, or hard with either binary (yes or no) or descriptive answers. The physicians then graded the chatbot-generated answers to these questions for accuracy (6-point Likert scale with 1 being completely incorrect and 6 being completely correct) and completeness (3-point Likert scale, with 1 being incomplete and 3 being complete plus additional context). Scores were summarized with descriptive statistics and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test or the Kruskal-Wallis test. The study (including data analysis) was conducted from January to May 2023. Main outcomes and measures: Accuracy, completeness, and consistency over time and between 2 different versions (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) of chatbot-generated medical responses. Results: Across all questions (n = 284) generated by 33 physicians (31 faculty members and 2 recent graduates from residency or fellowship programs) across 17 specialties, the median accuracy score was 5.5 (IQR, 4.0-6.0) (between almost completely and complete correct) with a mean (SD) score of 4.8 (1.6) (between mostly and almost completely correct). The median completeness score was 3.0 (IQR, 2.0-3.0) (complete and comprehensive) with a mean (SD) score of 2.5 (0.7). For questions rated easy, medium, and hard, the median accuracy scores were 6.0 (IQR, 5.0-6.0), 5.5 (IQR, 5.0-6.0), and 5.0 (IQR, 4.0-6.0), respectively (mean [SD] scores were 5.0 [1.5], 4.7 [1.7], and 4.6 [1.6], respectively; P = .05). Accuracy scores for binary and descriptive questions were similar (median score, 6.0 [IQR, 4.0-6.0] vs 5.0 [IQR, 3.4-6.0]; mean [SD] score, 4.9 [1.6] vs 4.7 [1.6]; P = .07). Of 36 questions with scores of 1.0 to 2.0, 34 were requeried or regraded 8 to 17 days later with substantial improvement (median score 2.0 [IQR, 1.0-3.0] vs 4.0 [IQR, 2.0-5.3]; P < .01). A subset of questions, regardless of initial scores (version 3.5), were regenerated and rescored using version 4 with improvement (mean accuracy [SD] score, 5.2 [1.5] vs 5.7 [0.8]; median score, 6.0 [IQR, 5.0-6.0] for original and 6.0 [IQR, 6.0-6.0] for rescored; P = .002). Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional study, chatbot generated largely accurate information to diverse medical queries as judged by academic physician specialists with improvement over time, although it had important limitations. Further research and model development are needed to correct inaccuracies and for validation.