Observational studyEuropean radiology2019
Post-imaging pulmonary nodule mathematical prediction models: are they clinically relevant?
Observational study in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lung cancer risk prediction models based on pulmonary nodules: A systematic review.Thoracic cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Performance comparison of four published lung cancer prediction models applied to a cohort from the National Lung Screening Trial.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Article
- Efficiency of pulmonary nodule risk scoring systems in Turkish population.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- Clinical Adjuncts to Lung Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review.Thoracic surgery clinics · 2023Review
- Comprehensive Analysis of Clinical Logistic and Machine Learning-Based Models for the Evaluation of Pulmonary Nodules.JTO clinical and research reports · 2022Article
- Combination of CT and telomerase+ circulating tumor cells improves diagnosis of small pulmonary nodules.JCI insight · 2021Article
- Validation of the BRODERS classifier (BenignThe European respiratory journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPost-imaging mathematical prediction models (MPMs) provide guidance for the management of solid pulmonary nodules by providing a lung cancer risk score from demographic and radiologists-indicated imaging characteristics. We hypothesized calibrating the MPM risk score threshold to a local study cohort would result in improved performance over the original recommended MPM thresholds. We compared the pre- and post-calibration performance of four MPM models and determined if improvement in MPM prediction occurs as nodules are imaged longitudinally. MATERIALS AND
methodsA common cohort of 317 individuals with computed tomography-detected, solid nodules (80 malignant, 237 benign) were used to evaluate the MPM performance. We created a web-based application for this study that allows others to easily calibrate thresholds and analyze the performance of MPMs on their local cohort. Thirty patients with repeated imaging were tested for improved performance longitudinally.
resultsUsing calibrated thresholds, Mayo Clinic and Brock University (BU) MPMs performed the best (AUC = 0.63, 0.61) compared to the Veteran's Affairs (0.51) and Peking University (0.55). Only BU had consensus with the original MPM threshold; the other calibrated thresholds improved MPM accuracy. No significant improvements in accuracy were found longitudinally between time points.
conclusionsCalibration to a common cohort can select the best-performing MPM for your institution. Without calibration, BU has the most stable performance in solid nodules ≥ 8 mm but has only moderate potential to refine subjects into appropriate workup. Application of MPM is recommended only at initial evaluation as no increase in accuracy was achieved over time. KEY POINTS: • Post-imaging lung cancer risk mathematical predication models (MPMs) perform poorly on local populations without calibration. • An application is provided to facilitate calibration to new study cohorts: the Mayo Clinic model, the U.S. Department of Veteran's Affairs model, the Brock University model, and the Peking University model. • No significant improvement in risk prediction occurred in nodules with repeated imaging sessions, indicating the potential value of risk prediction application is limited to the initial evaluation.
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.