MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415830220 · doi:10.1093/jnci/djaf316

Personalizing lung cancer screening recommendations for heterogeneous populations: a microsimulation study

2025· article· en· W4415830220 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua B. Rager, Pianpian Cao, Rodney A. Hayward, Rafael Meza, Hormuzd A. Katki, Jeremy B. Sussman, Tanner Caverly

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLung cancer screeningLung cancerMicrosimulationPopulationCancer screeningCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is little guidance on how to personalize recommendations for lung cancer screening that accounts for the variation in expected net benefit from screening. We sought to explore the individual and population implications of identifying net benefit thresholds where lung cancer screening could be encouraged, discouraged, or offered as an option through neutral shared decision making due to screening being highly preference sensitive. METHODS: With a simulated US population of 40- to 80-year-old individuals who had ever smoked, we used microsimulation to estimate individualized quality-adjusted life-years saved with lung cancer screening. We then identified 2 net benefit thresholds for lung cancer screening that account for a range of patient preferences and scientific uncertainties and compared this approach with the current United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines. RESULTS: Our simulated population included 59 million people. In total, 15 million were USPSTF eligible; of those, 53% (8 million) maintained net benefit, even after accounting for unfavorable preferences about screening. Of the USPSTF population, 3% (450 000) are considered low net benefit (routinely discourage) and 47% (7 million) are in an intermediate gray area, where net benefit depends on patient preferences about lung cancer screening (offer-neutral shared decision making). Among adults who had ever smoked, 2.5 million are high net benefit but excluded by current USPSTF criteria; 20.5 million US adults who had ever smoked are intermediate net benefit but currently excluded by USPSTF criteria. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that half of the USPSTF lung cancer screening-eligible population is in a high-net-benefit group where lung cancer screening could be routinely encouraged. Current lung cancer screening eligibility criteria likely exclude many ever-smokers who are high net benefit and many more with intermediate net benefit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.263
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207