Development of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for low-dose computed tomography scans to screen for lung cancer in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveThe study objective was to establish The American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) lung cancer screening guidelines for clinical practice.MethodsThe AATS established the Lung Cancer Screening and Surveillance Task Force with multidisciplinary representation including 4 thoracic surgeons, 4 thoracic radiologists, 4 medical oncologists, 1 pulmonologist, 1 pathologist, and 1 epidemiologist. Members have engaged in interdisciplinary collaborations regarding lung cancer screening and clinical care of patients with, and at risk for, lung cancer. The task force reviewed the literature, including screening trials in the United States and Europe, and discussed local best clinical practices in the United States and Canada on 4 conference calls. A reference library supported the discussions and increased individual study across disciplines. The task force met to review the literature, state of clinical practice, and recommend consensus-based guidelines.ResultsNine of 14 task force members were present at the meeting, and 3 participated by telephone. Two absent task force members were polled afterward. Six unanimous recommendations and supporting work-up algorithms were presented to the Council of the AATS at the 2012 annual meeting in San Francisco, California.ConclusionsAnnual lung cancer screening and surveillance with low-dose computed tomography is recommended for smokers and former smokers with a 30 pack-year history of smoking and long-term lung cancer survivors aged 55 to 79 years. Screening may begin at age 50 years with a 20 pack-year history of smoking and additional comorbidity that produces a cumulative risk of developing lung cancer of 5% or greater over the following 5 years. Screening should be undertaken with a subspecialty qualified interdisciplinary team. Patient risk calculator application and intersociety engagement will provide data needed to refine future lung cancer screening guidelines. The study objective was to establish The American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) lung cancer screening guidelines for clinical practice. The AATS established the Lung Cancer Screening and Surveillance Task Force with multidisciplinary representation including 4 thoracic surgeons, 4 thoracic radiologists, 4 medical oncologists, 1 pulmonologist, 1 pathologist, and 1 epidemiologist. Members have engaged in interdisciplinary collaborations regarding lung cancer screening and clinical care of patients with, and at risk for, lung cancer. The task force reviewed the literature, including screening trials in the United States and Europe, and discussed local best clinical practices in the United States and Canada on 4 conference calls. A reference library supported the discussions and increased individual study across disciplines. The task force met to review the literature, state of clinical practice, and recommend consensus-based guidelines. Nine of 14 task force members were present at the meeting, and 3 participated by telephone. Two absent task force members were polled afterward. Six unanimous recommendations and supporting work-up algorithms were presented to the Council of the AATS at the 2012 annual meeting in San Francisco, California. Annual lung cancer screening and surveillance with low-dose computed tomography is recommended for smokers and former smokers with a 30 pack-year history of smoking and long-term lung cancer survivors aged 55 to 79 years. Screening may begin at age 50 years with a 20 pack-year history of smoking and additional comorbidity that produces a cumulative risk of developing lung cancer of 5% or greater over the following 5 years. Screening should be undertaken with a subspecialty qualified interdisciplinary team. Patient risk calculator application and intersociety engagement will provide data needed to refine future lung cancer screening guidelines.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".