Comparison of the sensitivity of different criteria to select lung cancer patients for screening in a cohort of German patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Trials of CT-based screening for lung cancer have shown a mortality advantage for screening in North America and Europe. Before introducing a nationwide lung cancer screening program in Germany, it is important to assess the criteria used in international trials in the German population. METHODS: We used data from 3623 lung cancer patients from the data warehouse of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL). We compared the sensitivity of the following lung cancer screening criteria overall and stratified by age and histology: the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST), the 2013 and 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and an adapted version of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian no race model (adapted PLCOm2012) with 6-year risk thresholds of 1.0%/6 year and 1.7%/6 year. RESULTS: Overall, the adapted PLCOm2012 model (1%/6 years), selected the highest proportion of lung cancer patients for screening (72.4%), followed by the 2021 USPSTF (70.0%), the adapted PLCOm2012 (1.7%/6 year) (57.4%), the 2013 USPTF (57.0%), DLCST criteria (48.7%), and the NLST (48.5%). The adapted PLCOm2012 risk model (1.0%/6 year) had the highest sensitivity for all histological types except for small-cell and large-cell carcinomas (non-significant), whereas the 2021 USPTF selected a higher proportion of patients. The sensitivity levels were higher in males than in females. CONCLUSION: Using a risk-based selection score resulted in higher sensitivities compared to criteria using dichotomized age and smoking history. However, gender disparities were apparent in all studied eligibility criteria. In light of increasing lung cancer incidences in women, all selection criteria should be reviewed for ways to close this gender gap, especially when implementing a large-scale lung cancer screening program.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".