ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2016
Risk factors assessment and risk prediction models in lung cancer screening candidates.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decomposition analysis of lung cancer and COPD mortality attributable to ambient PMAsia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2025Article
- Innovative Approaches to Early Detection of Cancer-Transforming Screening for Breast, Lung, and Hard-to-Screen Cancers.Cancers · 2025Review
- Analysis of lung cancer risk factors from medical records in Ethiopia using machine learning.PLOS digital health · 2023Article
- Risk Factors for the Diagnosis of Lung Cancer in Poland: A Large-Scale, Population-Based Case-Control Study.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Article
- Performance of various risk prediction models in a large lung cancer screening cohort in Gdańsk, Poland-a comparative study.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Article
- Estimation of lung cancer risk using homology-based emphysema quantification in patients with lung nodules.PloS one · 2019Article
- Lung Cancer Screening Uncertainty among Patients Undergoing LDCT.American journal of health behavior · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
From February 2015, low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening entered the armamentarium of diagnostic tools broadly available to individuals at high-risk of developing lung cancer. While a huge number of pulmonary nodules are identified, only a small fraction turns out to be early lung cancers. The majority of them constitute a variety of benign lesions. Although it entails a burden of the diagnostic work-up, the undisputable benefit emerges from: (I) lung cancer diagnosis at earlier stages (stage shift); (II) additional findings enabling the implementation of a preventive action beyond the realm of thoracic oncology. This review presents how to utilize the risk factors from distinct categories such as epidemiology, radiology and biomarkers to target the fraction of population, which may benefit most from the introduced screening modality.
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.