ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2012
Predictive accuracy of the Liverpool Lung Project risk model for stratifying patients for computed tomography screening for lung cancer: a case-control and cohort validation study.
Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
89 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Use and impact of risk-based eligibility models in low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening: a systematic review.Public health reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Predictive performance of risk prediction models for lung cancer incidence in Western and Asian countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- ESR/ERS white paper on lung cancer screening.European radiology · 2015Guideline
- Screening for lung cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Sequential screening for lung cancer in a high-risk group: randomised controlled trial: LungSEARCH: a randomised controlled trial of Surveillance using sputum and imaging for the EARly detection of lung Cancer in a High-risk group.The European respiratory journal · 2019Trial
- Modeling in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Assessing External and Predictive Validity of MISCAN-Colon Microsimulation Model Using NORCCAP Trial Results.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018Trial
- A Validated Clinical Risk Prediction Model for Lung Cancer in Smokers of All Ages and Exposure Types: A HUNT Study.EBioMedicine · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Targeting of low-dose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death.The New England journal of medicine · 2013Trial
- Pulmonary nodules: classification, biomarkers, signaling pathways, diseases, early diagnosis and management.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- The landscape of lung cancer screening globally: a comparison of established programs and estimates of eligibility to participate.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Review
- Early Detection of Lung Cancer: A Review of Innovative Milestones and Techniques.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- State law at the intersection of lung cancer screening guidelines and social determinants of health.Journal of cancer policy · 2025Article
- Radiomics and artificial intelligence for risk stratification of pulmonary nodules: Ready for primetime?Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2025Review
- Thoracic CT Screening in a Population With Unidentified Lung Cancer Risk Factors: Does It Facilitate the Early Diagnosis of Lung Cancer?Canadian respiratory journal · 2025Article
- Evaluation of an in-use chest CT protocol in lung cancer screening - A single institutional study.Acta radiologica open · 2024Article
- Lung cancer screening: where do we stand?Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2024Review
- Lung Cancer Risk Prediction Models for Asian Ever-Smokers.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2024Article
- Six-year performance of risk-based selection for lung cancer screening in the Manchester Lung Health Check cohort.BMJ oncology · 2024Article
29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExternal validation of existing lung cancer risk prediction models is limited. Using such models in clinical practice to guide the referral of patients for computed tomography (CT) screening for lung cancer depends on external validation and evidence of predicted clinical benefit.
objectiveTo evaluate the discrimination of the Liverpool Lung Project (LLP) risk model and demonstrate its predicted benefit for stratifying patients for CT screening by using data from 3 independent studies from Europe and North America.
designCase-control and prospective cohort study.
settingEurope and North America. PATIENTS: Participants in the European Early Lung Cancer (EUELC) and Harvard case-control studies and the LLP population-based prospective cohort (LLPC) study. MEASUREMENTS: 5-year absolute risks for lung cancer predicted by the LLP model.
resultsThe LLP risk model had good discrimination in both the Harvard (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.75 to 0.78]) and the LLPC (AUC, 0.82 [CI, 0.80 to 0.85]) studies and modest discrimination in the EUELC (AUC, 0.67 [CI, 0.64 to 0.69]) study. The decision utility analysis, which incorporates the harms and benefit of using a risk model to make clinical decisions, indicates that the LLP risk model performed better than smoking duration or family history alone in stratifying high-risk patients for lung cancer CT screening. LIMITATIONS: The model cannot assess whether including other risk factors, such as lung function or genetic markers, would improve accuracy. Lack of information on asbestos exposure in the LLPC limited the ability to validate the complete LLP risk model.
conclusionValidation of the LLP risk model in 3 independent external data sets demonstrated good discrimination and evidence of predicted benefits for stratifying patients for lung cancer CT screening. Further studies are needed to prospectively evaluate model performance and evaluate the optimal population risk thresholds for initiating lung cancer screening.
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.