MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393166419 · doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.102758

184P A framework to support implementation of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening: Research methodology and opportunities for impact

2024· article· en· W4393166419 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Holly C. Wilcox, E. Wheeler, Suzanne Wait, D. Bancroft, Jody E. Hooper, C L Melson

Bibliographic record

VenueESMO Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputed tomographyLung cancerMedicineLung cancer screeningMedical physicsRadiologyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Lung Cancer Policy Network, a global multi-stakeholder initiative of experts in lung cancer, has developed a framework to inform implementation of LDCT screening. The framework and associated online toolkit aim to support those involved in the planning and delivery of LDCT screening programmes around the world. System readiness refers to the ability of health systems to rapidly and sustainably adapt policies, processes and infrastructure to support the integration of new components of care. Assessing health system readiness is therefore an important step when planning the implementation of screening programmes. With this understanding, a bespoke framework to assess readiness for implementation of LDCT screening was developed. The framework was informed by a review of existing peer-reviewed and grey literature from 2010–22, expert interviews and insights from Network members. The framework was further refined after it was applied to five countries where screening implementation is underway: Canada, Poland, South Korea, the UK and the US. The implementation framework and online toolkit were made publicly available in March 2023. To date, the framework has been downloaded over 800 times and the toolkit has been used by almost 1,500 people. The framework will help with assessing health system readiness for screening implementation at a national or regional level. The framework is organised into six domains, each consisting of metrics to identify gaps in screening requirements (including local infrastructure, technical and workforce capacity, governance, data flows and existing care pathways), and measures to address these. Researchers and decision-makers can plan and resource their screening programmes by using this information and the supporting material in the online toolkit. To our knowledge, this is the first framework to support implementation of LDCT screening programmes globally. Application of the framework to a given health system can provide evidence to inform policy considerations for implementation, facilitating high-quality, equitable and cost-effective screening.

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 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.357
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESMO OpenSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207