MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980626014 · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(19)30159-1

Prediction of lung cancer risk at follow-up screening with low-dose CT: a training and validation study of a deep learning method

2019· article· en· W2980626014 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Digital Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandFoothills Medical CentreDalhousie UniversityUniversity of OttawaJuravinski HospitalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecUniversity of CalgaryPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreVancouver General HospitalBrock UniversityToronto General HospitalOttawa HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
FundersNational Cancer InstituteLaw Foundation of British ColumbiaPancreatic Cancer Action NetworkAllegheny Health NetworkTerry Fox Research InstituteJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsLung cancerMedicineLung cancer screeningArtificial intelligenceOncologyMachine learningComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundCurrent lung cancer screening guidelines use either mean diameter, volume, or density of the largest lung nodule on the previous CT scan or appearance of a new nodule to ascertain the timing of the next CT scan. We aimed to develop an accurate screening protocol by estimating the 3-year lung cancer risk after two screening CT scans using deep learning of radiologists' CT readings and other universally available clinical information.MethodsA deep learning algorithm (referred to as DeepLR) was developed using data from participants who had received at least two CT screening scans up to 2 years apart in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST; training cohort). Double-blinded validation was done using data from participants in the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer (PanCan) study (validation cohort). The primary analysis was to compare accuracy of DeepLR scores to predict lung cancer incidence at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years with the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) and volume doubling time, using time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis.FindingsThe training cohort consisted of 25 097 participants from NLST and the validation cohort comprised 2294 individuals from PanCan. In the validation cohort, DeepLR showed good discrimination, with 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year time-dependent AUC values for cancer diagnosis of 0·968 (SD 0·013), 0·946 (0·013), and 0·899 (0·017), respectively. Among individuals deemed high risk by DeepLR, 94%, 85%, and 71% of incident and interval lung cancers diagnosed within 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years, respectively, after the second screening CT scan were identified. Furthermore, individuals with high DeepLR scores had a significantly higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio 16·07, 95% CI 10·15–25·44; p<0·0001) among people with high scores on Lung-RADS.InterpretationDeepLR recognises patterns in both temporal and spatial changes and synergy among changes in nodule and non-nodule features. DeepLR scores could be used to accurately guide clinical management after the next scheduled repeat screening CT scan.FundingAllegheny Health Network, Johns Hopkins University, Terry Fox Research Institute, and British Columbia Cancer Foundation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.308 · 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