Benchmarking lung cancer screening programmes with adaptive screening frequency against the optimal screening schedules derived from the ENGAGE framework: a comparative microsimulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Lung cancer screening recommendations employ annual frequency for eligible individuals, despite evidence that it may not be universally optimal. The impact of imposing a structure on the screening frequency remains unknown. The ENGAGE framework, a validated framework that offers fully dynamic, analytically optimal, personalised lung cancer screening recommendations, could be used to assess the impact of screening structure on the effectiveness and efficiency of lung cancer screening. Methods: In this comparative microsimulation study, we benchmarked alternative clinically relevant structured lung cancer screening programmes employing a fixed (annual or biennial) or adaptive (start with annual/biennial screening and then switch to biennial/annual at ages 60- or 65-years) screening frequency, against the ENGAGE framework. Individuals were eligible for screening according to the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on lung cancer screening. We assessed programmes' efficiency based on the number of screenings per death avoided (LDCT/DA) and the number of screenings per ever-screened individual (LDCT/ESI), and programmes' effectiveness using quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained from screening, lung cancer-specific mortality reduction (MR), and number of screen-detected lung cancer cases. We used validated natural history, smoking history generator, and risk prediction models to inform our analysis. Sensitivity analysis of key inputs was conducted. Findings: ENGAGE was the best performing strategy. Among the structured policies, adaptive biennial-to-annual at age 65 was the best strategy requiring 24% less LDCT/DA and 60% less LDCT/ESI compared to TF2021, but yielded 105 more deaths per 100,000 screen-eligible individuals (10.2% vs. 11.8% MR for TF2021, p = 0.28). Fixed annual screening was the most effective strategy but the least efficient and was ranked as the fifth best strategy. All strategies yielded similar QALYs gained. Adherence levels did not affect the rankings. Interpretation: Adaptive lung cancer screening strategies that start with biennial and switch to annual screening at a prespecified age perform well and warrant further consideration, especially in settings with limited availability of CT scanners and radiologists. Funding: National Cancer Institute.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".