The Lung Reporting and Data System (LU-RADS): A Proposal for Computed Tomography Screening
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the positive outcome of the recent randomized trial of computed tomography (CT) screening for lung cancer, substantial implementation challenges remain, including the clear reporting of relative risk and suggested workup of screen-detected nodules. Based on current literature, we propose a 6-level Lung-Reporting and Data System (LU-RADS) that classifies screening CTs by the nodule with the highest malignancy risk. As the LU-RADS level increases, the risk of malignancy increases. The LU-RADS level is linked directly to suggested follow-up pathways. Compared with current narrative reporting, this structure should improve communication with patients and clinicians, and provide a data collection framework to facilitate screening program evaluation and radiologist training. In overview, category 1 includes CTs with no nodules and returns the subject to routine screening. Category 2 scans harbor minimal risk, including <5 mm, perifissural, or long-term stable nodules that require no further workup before the next routine screening CT. Category 3 scans contain indeterminate nodules and require CT follow up with the interval dependent on nodule size (small [5-9 mm] or large [≥ 10 mm] and possibly transient). Category 4 scans are suspicious and are subdivided into 4A, low risk of malignancy; 4B, likely low-grade adenocarcinoma; and 4C, likely malignant. The 4B and 4C nodules have a high likelihood of neoplasm simply based on screening CT features, even if positron emission tomography, needle biopsy, and/or bronchoscopy are negative. Category 5 nodules demonstrate frankly malignant behavior on screening CT, and category 6 scans contain tissue-proven malignancies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it