ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2012
Chapter 13: CISNET lung models: comparison of model assumptions and model structures.
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Economic Evaluations of Establishing Opioid Overdose Prevention Centers in 12 North American Cities: A Systematic Review.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2024Pooled it
- Natural history models for lung Cancer: A scoping review.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Prediction of lung cancer risk based on age and smoking history.Computer methods and programs in biomedicine · 2022Article
- Large-scale systematic analysis of exposure to multiple cancer risk factors and the associations between exposure patterns and cancer incidence.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Predicting the Mortality Benefit of CT Screening for Second Lung Cancer in a High-Risk Population.PloS one · 2016Article
- Social network effects of nonlifesaving early-stage breast cancer detection on mammography rates.American journal of public health · 2014Article
- Article
- Article
- Chapter 9: The MGH-HMS lung cancer policy model: tobacco control versus screening.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2012Article
- Chapter 6: Lung cancer in never smokers: epidemiology and risk prediction models.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2012Article
- Chapter 8: The FHCRC lung cancer model.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sophisticated modeling techniques can be powerful tools to help us understand the effects of cancer control interventions on population trends in cancer incidence and mortality. Readers of journal articles are, however, rarely supplied with modeling details. Six modeling groups collaborated as part of the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to investigate the contribution of U.S. tobacco-control efforts toward reducing lung cancer deaths over the period 1975-2000. The six models included in this monograph were developed independently and use distinct, complementary approaches toward modeling the natural history of lung cancer. The models used the same data for inputs, and agreed on the design of the analysis and the outcome measures. This article highlights aspects of the models that are most relevant to similarities of or differences between the results. Structured comparisons can increase the transparency of these complex models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.