Protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis for risk factors for lung cancer in individuals with lung nodules identified by low-dose CT screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Worldwide, lung cancer (LC) is the second most frequent cancer and the leading cause of cancer related mortality. Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening reduced LC mortality by 20-24% in randomised trials of high-risk populations. A significant proportion of those screened have nodules detected that are found to be benign. Consequently, many individuals receive extra imaging and/or unnecessary procedures, which can have a negative physical and psychological impact, as well as placing a financial burden on health systems. Therefore, there is a need to identify individuals who need no interval CT between screening rounds. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of this study is to identify risk factors predictive of LC, which are known at the time of the scan, in patients with LDCT screen-detected lung nodules. The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases will be searched and articles that are on cohorts or mention cohorts of screenees with nodules will be identified. A data extraction framework will ensure consistent extraction across studies. Individual participant data (IPD) will be collected to perform a one-stage IPD meta-analysis using hierarchical univariate models. Clustering will be accounted for by having separate intercept terms for each cohort. Where IPD is not available, the effects of risk factors will be extracted from publications, if possible. Effects from IPD cohorts and aggregate data will be reported and compared. The PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) will be used for assessment of quality of the studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was not required as this study is a secondary analysis. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022309515.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.154 | 0.015 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".