ArticleStatistics in medicine2021
Modeling the mean time to interval cancer after negative results of periodic cancer screening.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantifying Overdiagnosis for Multicancer Detection Tests: A Novel Method.Statistics in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Interval cancers are cancers detected symptomatically between screens or after the last screen. A mathematical model for the development of interval cancers can provide useful information for evaluating cancer screening. In this regard a useful quantity is MIC, the mean duration in years of progressive preclinical cancer (PPC) that leads to interval cancers. Estimation of MIC involved extending a previous model to include three negative screens, invoking the multinomial-Poisson transformation to avoid estimating background cancer trends, and varying screening test sensitivity. Simulations show that when the true MIC is 0.5, the method yields a reasonably narrow range of estimated MICs over the range of screening test sensitivities from 0.5 to 1.0. If the lower bound on the screening test sensitivity is 0.7, the method performs considerably better even for larger MICs. The application of the method involved annual lung cancer screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian trial. Assuming a normal distribution for PPC duration, the estimated MIC (95% confidence interval) ranged from 0.00 (0.00 to 0.34) at a screening test sensitivity of 1.0 to 0.54 (0.03, 1.00) at a screening test sensitivity of 0.5 Assuming an exponential distribution for PPC duration, which did not fit as well, the estimated MIC ranged from 0.27 (0.08, 0.49) at a screening test sensitivity of 0.5 to 0.73 (0.32, 1.26) at a screen test sensitivity of 1.0 Based on these results, investigators may wish to investigate more frequent lung cancer screening.
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.