ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2023
Impact of an integrated classifier using biomarkers, clinical and imaging factors on clinical decisions making for lung nodules.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomarkers for Lung Nodule Risk Stratification: Are We There Yet?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Biomarkers for the diagnosis of indeterminate pulmonary nodules: are we there yet?Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Review
- An integrated proteomic classifier to distinguish benign from malignant pulmonary nodules.Clinical proteomics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: An integrated classifier that utilizes plasma proteomic biomarker along with five clinical and imaging factors was previously shown to be potentially useful in lung nodule evaluation. This study evaluated the impact of the integrated proteomic classifier on management decisions in patients with a pretest probability of cancer (pCA) ≤50% in "real-world" clinical setting. Methods: Retrospective study examining patients with lung nodules who were evaluated using the integrated classifier as compared to standard clinical care during the same period, with at least 1-year follow-up. Results: A total of 995 patients were evaluated for lung nodules over 1 year following the implementation of the integrated classifier with 17.3% prevalence of lung cancer. 231 patients met the study eligibility criteria; 102 (44.2%) were tested with the integrated classifier, while 129 (55.8%) did not. The median number of chest imaging studies was 2 [interquartile range (IQR), 1-2] in the integrated classifier arm and 2 [IQR, 1-3] in the non-integrated classifier arm (P=0.09). The median outpatient clinic visit was 2.00 (IQR, 1.00-3.00) in the integrated classifier arm and 2.00 (IQR, 2.00-3.00) in the non-integrated classifier (P=0.004). Fewer invasive procedures were pursued in the integrated classifier arm as compared to non-integrated classifier respectively (26.5% Conclusions: In patients with lung nodules with a pCA ≤50%, use of the integrated classifier was associated with fewer invasive procedures and clinic visits without misclassifying patients with likely benign lung nodules results at 1-year follow-up.
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.