MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W135560778

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: Canadian experience.

2007· article· en· W135560778 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heidi Roberts, Demetris Patsios, Narinder Paul, Maureen McGregor, Gordon L. Weisbrod, TaeBong Chung, Steven D. Herman, Scott Boerner, Thomas K. Waddell, Shaf Keshavjee, Gail Darling, André Pereira, Ashwini V. Kale, Hamid Bayanati, Igor Sitartchouk, Ming‐Sound Tsao, Frances A. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineComputed tomographyLung cancer screeningLung cancerNuclear medicineBiopsyRadiologyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In 2003, the Department of Medical Imaging at the University Health Network in Toronto, Ontario, became the first Canadian site of the Intemational Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP). We report the results from the first 1000 baseline studies. METHODS: Between June 2003 and December 2005, we enrolled 1000 high-risk smokers (that is, smokers with a history of at least 10 pack years, or the equivalent of one pack daily for 10 years), aged 55 years or older. A low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) (40 to 60 mA, 120 kV) was performed with 1.0 mm to 1.25 mm collimation. Nodules found at baseline were followed according to the I-ELCAP protocol: (1) no noncalcified nodules (NCNs) or NCNs < or =4 mm or nonsolid nodules < 8 mm, annual repeat; (2) NCNs > or =5 mm or nonsolid nodules > or =8 mm, 3-month follow-up; or (3) nonsolid nodules > or =15 mm, antibiotics and 1-month follow-up. RESULTS: The first 1000 study participants were aged 63 years, standard deviation (SD) 6 years, with a smoking history of 38 pack years, SD 22 pack years; 662 (66%) were former smokers, and 338 (34%) were current smokers; 453 (45%) were men, and 547 (55%) were women. Of the participants, 256 (26%) had a positive baseline low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scan; 227 (23%) were followed after 3 months and 16 (1.6%) after 1 month; 7 (0.7%) received a contrast-enhanced CT and 6 (0.6%) an immediate CT-guided biopsy. Twenty-six invasive procedures were performed: 22 CT-guided biopsies, 1 ultrasound-guided lymph node metastasis biopsy, 1 bronchoscopic biopsy, and 2 surgeries. The malignancy rate of the invasive procedures was 85%. Overall, the malignancy prevalence is 2.2%. Of the malignancies, 20 are lung carcinomas: 19 non-small-cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs) (14 adenocarcinoma or bronchioalveolar carcinoma [BAC], 4 squamous carcinoma, and 1 large-cell carcinoma) and 1 small-cell carcinoma; 15 (78%) of the NSCLCs are Stage I. Fourteen patients underwent surgery (1 pneumonectomy, 9 lobectomies, and 4 segmentectomies). CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that LDCT identifies small, early-stage, resectable lung cancer in a high-risk population.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207