ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2021
Using Prediction Models to Reduce Persistent Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Draft 2020 USPSTF Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07073898 (Population Health Management Approaches to Increase Lung Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers - UG3 Pilot Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 67 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.
Population Health Management Approaches to Increase Lung Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers - UG3 Pilot Clinical Trial
Who cites it
67 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health Communication and Stepped Reminders Interventions for Lung Cancer Screening: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Utilization of Diagnostic Procedures After Lung Cancer Screening in the National Lung Screening Trial.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2023Trial
- A Randomized Trial of Telephone-Based Smoking Cessation Treatment in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Trial
- Improved motivation and readiness to quit shortly after lung cancer screening: Evidence for a teachable moment.Cancer · 2022Trial
- Predictors of attrition in a smoking cessation trial conducted in the lung cancer screening setting.Contemporary clinical trials · 2021Trial
- Strategies for mitigating artificial intelligence bias in healthcare: a systematic review.JAMIA open · 2026Review
- Addressing algorithmic bias in lung cancer screening eligibility.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- A pragmatic pre-post intervention trial to address adherence to lung cancer screening follow-up in community settings (the ACCELL trial): Study protocol.Contemporary clinical trials · 2025Article
- Article
- Integrated systems biology reveals an 8-gene signature predicting early-stage lung adenocarcinoma progression and patient survival.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- Project SWITCH Study Protocol: A Tobacco-Free Workplace Program for Dissemination and Implementation in Lung Cancer Screening Centers.Methods and protocols · 2025Article
- Characteristics of the Newly Eligible Population under Two Recent Updates of Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Article
- A Novel Automated Algorithm to Identify Lung Cancer Screening from Free Text of Radiology Orders.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Individual- and Group-Level Disparities Between Racial and Ethnic Groups in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Criteria.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Estimating the Burden of False Positives and Implementation Costs From Adding Multiple Single Cancer Tests or a Single Multi-Cancer Test to Standard-Of-Care Screening.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Data-integration with pseudoweights and survey-calibration: application to developing US-representative lung cancer risk models for use in screening.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2025Article
- Review
7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on byBeyond the2021
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We examined whether draft 2020 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung cancer screening recommendations "partially ameliorate racial disparities in screening eligibility" compared with the 2013 guidelines, as claimed. Using data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey, USPSTF-2020 increased eligibility by similar proportions for minorities (97.1%) and Whites (78.3%). Contrary to the intent of USPSTF-2020, the relative disparity (differences in percentages of model-estimated gainable life-years from National Lung Screening Trial-like screening by eligible Whites vs minorities) actually increased from USPSTF-2013 to USPSTF-2020 (African Americans: 48.3%-33.4% = 15.0% to 64.5%-48.5% = 16.0%; Asian Americans: 48.3%-35.6% = 12.7% to 64.5%-45.2% = 19.3%; Hispanic Americans: 48.3%-24.8% = 23.5% to 64.5%-37.0% = 27.5%). However, augmenting USPSTF-2020 with high-benefit individuals selected by the Life-Years From Screening with Computed Tomography (LYFS-CT) model nearly eliminated disparities for African Americans (76.8%-75.5% = 1.2%) and improved screening efficiency for Asian and Hispanic Americans, although disparities were reduced only slightly (Hispanic Americans) or unchanged (Asian Americans). The draft USPSTF-2020 guidelines increased the number of eligible minorities vs USPSTF-2013 but may inadvertently increase racial and ethnic disparities. LYFS-CT could reduce disparities in screening eligibility by identifying ineligible people with high predicted benefit regardless of race and ethnicity.
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.