MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114175038 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1214726

Probability of Cancer in Pulmonary Nodules Detected on First Screening CT

2013· article· en· W2114175038 on OpenAlexaffabout
Annette McWilliams, Martin C. Tammemägi, John R. Mayo, Heidi Roberts, Geoffrey Liu, Kam Soghrati, Kazuhiro Yasufuku, Simon Martel, Francis Laberge, Michel Gingras, Sukhinder Atkar-Khattra, Christine D. Berg, Ken Evans, Richard J. Finley, John Yee, John C. English, Paola Nasute, John R. Goffin, Serge Puksa, Lori Stewart, Scott Tsai, Michael R. Johnston, Daria Manos, Garth Nicholas, Glenwood Goss, Jean M. Seely, Kayvan Amjadi, Alain Tremblay, Paul Burrowes, Paul MacEachern, Ming‐Sound Tsao, Stephen Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandVancouver General HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of CalgaryJuravinski HospitalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecDalhousie UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity Health NetworkBrock UniversityToronto General HospitalBC Cancer Agency
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineNodule (geology)Lung cancerNational Lung Screening TrialLung cancer screeningLogistic regressionCancerRadiologyCancer registryPopulationNuclear medicineInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Major issues in the implementation of screening for lung cancer by means of low-dose computed tomography (CT) are the definition of a positive result and the management of lung nodules detected on the scans. We conducted a population-based prospective study to determine factors predicting the probability that lung nodules detected on the first screening low-dose CT scans are malignant or will be found to be malignant on follow-up. METHODS: We analyzed data from two cohorts of participants undergoing low-dose CT screening. The development data set included participants in the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (PanCan). The validation data set included participants involved in chemoprevention trials at the British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA), sponsored by the U.S. National Cancer Institute. The final outcomes of all nodules of any size that were detected on baseline low-dose CT scans were tracked. Parsimonious and fuller multivariable logistic-regression models were prepared to estimate the probability of lung cancer. RESULTS: In the PanCan data set, 1871 persons had 7008 nodules, of which 102 were malignant, and in the BCCA data set, 1090 persons had 5021 nodules, of which 42 were malignant. Among persons with nodules, the rates of cancer in the two data sets were 5.5% and 3.7%, respectively. Predictors of cancer in the model included older age, female sex, family history of lung cancer, emphysema, larger nodule size, location of the nodule in the upper lobe, part-solid nodule type, lower nodule count, and spiculation. Our final parsimonious and full models showed excellent discrimination and calibration, with areas under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve of more than 0.90, even for nodules that were 10 mm or smaller in the validation set. CONCLUSIONS: Predictive tools based on patient and nodule characteristics can be used to accurately estimate the probability that lung nodules detected on baseline screening low-dose CT scans are malignant. (Funded by the Terry Fox Research Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00751660.).

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)0.018
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations1,404
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207