ArticleIEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions2019
Using Sequential Decision Making to Improve Lung Cancer Screening Performance.
Article in IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lung Cancer Detection Using Bayesian Networks: A Retrospective Development and Validation Study on a Danish Population of High-Risk Individuals.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Reinforcement learning for individualized lung cancer screening schedules: A nested case-control study.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- AI-Driven Models for Diagnosing and Predicting Outcomes in Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2024Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Machine Learning AI Architectures in Detection and Classification of Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Lung Nodule Detection via Optimized Convolutional Neural Network: Impact of Improved Moth Flame Algorithm.Sensing and imaging · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence Tools for Refining Lung Cancer Screening.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Globally, lung cancer is responsible for nearly one in five cancer deaths. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated the efficacy of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to identify early-stage disease, setting the basis for widespread implementation of lung cancer screening programs. However, the specificity of LDCT lung cancer screening is suboptimal, with a significant false positive rate. Representing this imaging-based screening process as a sequential decision making problem, we combined multiple machine learning-based methods to learn a partially-observable Markov decision process that simultaneously optimizes lung cancer detection while enhancing test specificity. Using NLST data, we trained a dynamic Bayesian network as an observational model and used inverse reinforcement learning to discover a rewards function based on experts' decisions. Our resultant predictive model decreased the false positive rate while maintaining a high true positive rate at a level comparable to human experts. Our model also detected a number of lung cancers earlier.
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.