ArticleJournal of epidemiology and global health2013
Bayesian lead time estimation for the Johns Hopkins Lung Project data.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and global health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimation of Preclinical State Onset Age and Sojourn Time for Heavy Smokers in Lung Cancer.Statistics and its interface · 2022Article
- When to initiate cancer screening exam?Statistics and its interface · 2022Article
- Inference of Sojourn Time and Transition Density using the NLST X-ray Screening Data in Lung Cancer.Medical research archives · 2021Article
- Estimation of Lead Time via Low-Dose CT in the National Lung Screening Trial.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2018Article
- Symptom lead times in lung and colorectal cancers: what are the benefits of symptom-based approaches to early diagnosis?British journal of cancer · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
problem statementLung cancer screening using X-rays has been controversial for many years. A major concern is whether lung cancer screening really brings any survival benefits, which depends on effective treatment after early detection. The problem was analyzed from a different point of view and estimates were presented of the projected lead time for participants in a lung cancer screening program using the Johns Hopkins Lung Project (JHLP) data.
methodThe newly developed method of lead time estimation was applied where the lifetime T was treated as a random variable rather than a fixed value, resulting in the number of future screenings for a given individual is a random variable. Using the actuarial life table available from the United States Social Security Administration, the lifetime distribution was first obtained, then the lead time distribution was projected using the JHLP data.
resultsThe data analysis with the JHLP data shows that, for a male heavy smoker with initial screening ages at 50, 60, and 70, the probability of no-early-detection with semiannual screens will be 32.16%, 32.45%, and 33.17%, respectively; while the mean lead time is 1.36, 1.33 and 1.23 years. The probability of no-early-detection increases monotonically when the screening interval increases, and it increases slightly as the initial age increases for the same screening interval. The mean lead time and its standard error decrease when the screening interval increases for all age groups, and both decrease when initial age increases with the same screening interval.
conclusionThe overall mean lead time estimated with a random lifetime T is slightly less than that with a fixed value of T. This result is hoped to be of benefit to improve current screening programs.
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.