ArticleAcademic radiology2022
Factors Influencing the False Positive Rate in CT Lung Cancer Screening.
Article in Academic radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of COPD on Lung Cancer Screening Positivity in a Specialist-Managed Cohort From Brazil.CHEST pulmonary · 2026Article
- Lung Cancer Screening in a Population from Northeast Italy Exposed to Both Asbestos and Smoking: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Integration of circulating tumor DNA data enhances lung cancer prediction in patients with COPD.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Performance validation of a closed loop fully automated AI model for lung nodule stratification in screening cases.Respiratory investigation · 2026Article
- Baseline results from the Norwegian radiology-led lung cancer screening pilot.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- CCM-ITALUNG2 pilot on lung cancer screening in Italy: recruitment, integration with smoking cessation and baseline results.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Nodule Characteristics, Clinical Risk Factors, and Radiologist Experience as Predictors of Positive Baseline LDCT Screening Results.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Postoperative outcomes in pulmonary nodule patients: a comparative analysis of aggressiveJournal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- State law at the intersection of lung cancer screening guidelines and social determinants of health.Journal of cancer policy · 2025Article
- Biomarkers in lung cancer diagnosis and bronchoscopy: Current landscape and future directions.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2025Review
- LDCT image biomarkers that matter most for the deep learning classification of indeterminate pulmonary nodules.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2025Article
- The Evidence Effect: How Fact Boxes Shift Perceptions of Lung Cancer Screening in Austrian Medical Practice.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- HUNCHEST-II contributes to a shift to earlier-stage lung cancer detection: final results of a nationwide screening program.European radiology · 2024Article
- How will lung cancer screening and lung nodule management change the diagnostic and surgical lung cancer landscape?European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024Review
- Dose-response relationship between lung function and chest imaging response to silica exposures in artificial stone manufacturing workers.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2024Article
- Developing technologies and areas of interest in lung cancer screening adjuncts.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Review
- Economic Evaluation of a Novel Lung Cancer Diagnostic in a Population of Patients with a Positive Low-Dose Computed Tomography Result.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2024Article
- Surgical Resection of Benign Nodules in Lung Cancer Screening: Incidence and Features.JTO clinical and research reports · 2023Article
- See Lung Cancer with an AI.Cancers · 2023Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo identify factors influencing the likelihood of a false positive lung cancer screening (LCS) computed tomography (CT), which may lead to increased costs and patient anxiety. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, we examined all LCS CTs performed across our healthcare network from 2014 to 2018, recording Lung-RADS category and diagnosis of lung cancer. A false positive was defined by Lung-RADS 3-4X and no diagnosis of lung cancer within 1 year. Patient demographics and smoking history, presence of emphysema, diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, radiologist years of experience and annual volume, income level by patient zip code, and screening institution were evaluated in a multivariate logistic regression model for false positive exams.
resultsA total of 5835 LCS CTs were included from 3735 patients. Lung cancer was diagnosed in 142 cases (2%). Of the LCS CTs, 905 (16%) were positive by Lung-RADS, and 766 (13%) represented false positives. Logistic regression analysis showed that screening institution (odds ratios [OR] 0.91 - 2.43), baseline scan (OR 1.43), radiologist experience (OR 0.59), patient age (OR 2.08), diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 1.34), presence of emphysema (OR 1.32), and income level (OR 0.43) were significant predictors of false positives.
conclusionA number of patient-specific and site/radiologist-specific factors influence the false positive rate in CT LCS. In particular, radiologists with less experience had a higher false positive rate. Screening programs may wish to develop quality assurance programs to compare the false positive rates of their radiologists to national benchmarks.
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.