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 OpenAlexafffundabout
Peng Huang, Cheng Ting Lin, Yuliang Li, Martin C. Tammemägi, Malcolm V. Brock, Sukhinder Atkar-Khattra, Yanxun Xu, Ping Hu, John R. Mayo, Heidi Schmidt, Michel Gingras, Sergio Pasian, Lori Stewart, Scott Tsai, Jean M. Seely, Daria Manos, Paul Burrowes, Ming‐Sound Tsao, Stephen Lam

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

Background Current 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. Methods A 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. Findings The 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. Interpretation DeepLR 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. Funding Allegheny 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.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations144
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Digital HealthSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207