ArticleJAMA network open2023
Methods for Using Race and Ethnicity in Prediction Models for Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility.
Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- A smoking-related plasma protein score and smoking-related cancer risk and mortality in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Personalizing lung cancer screening recommendations for heterogeneous populations: a microsimulation study.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Haematologic Diagnostics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives.Acta haematologica · 2026Review
- Effect of race and ethnicity on advanced breast cancer risk prediction model performance.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Development and Validation of PT-PENCIL: The Physical Therapy Frequency Clinical Decision Support Tool to Increase Hospital Discharge to Home.Physical therapy · 2025Article
- Racial Bias in Clinical and Population Health Algorithms: A Critical Review of Current Debates.Annual review of public health · 2025Review
- Article
- Individual- and Group-Level Disparities Between Racial and Ethnic Groups in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Criteria.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Guidance for unbiased predictive information for healthcare decision-making and equity (GUIDE): considerations when race may be a prognostic factor.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Prediction-Augmented Shared Decision-Making and Lung Cancer Screening Uptake.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Association of Domestic Water Hardness with All-Cause and Cause-Specific Cancers: Evidence from 447,996 UK Biobank Participants.Environmental health perspectives · 2024Article
- Lung cancer screening: where do we stand?Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2024Review
- Considerations for using predictive models that include race as an input variable: The case study of lung cancer screening.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2023Article
- Clinician Perceptions on Using Decision Tools to Support Prediction-Based Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Using race and ethnicity in clinical prediction models can reduce or inadvertently increase racial and ethnic disparities in medical decisions. Objective: To compare eligibility for lung cancer screening in a contemporary representative US population by refitting the life-years gained from screening-computed tomography (LYFS-CT) model to exclude race and ethnicity vs a counterfactual eligibility approach that recalculates life expectancy for racial and ethnic minority individuals using the same covariates but substitutes White race and uses the higher predicted life expectancy, ensuring that historically underserved groups are not penalized. Design, Setting, and Participants: The 2 submodels composing LYFS-CT NoRace were refit and externally validated without race and ethnicity: the lung cancer death submodel in participants of a large clinical trial (recruited 1993-2001; followed up until December 31, 2009) who ever smoked (n = 39 180) and the all-cause mortality submodel in the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 1997-2001 participants aged 40 to 80 years who ever smoked (n = 74 842, followed up until December 31, 2006). Screening eligibility was examined in NHIS 2015-2018 participants aged 50 to 80 years who ever smoked. Data were analyzed from June 2021 to September 2022. Exposure: Including and removing race and ethnicity (African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, White) in each LYFS-CT submodel. Main Outcomes and Measures: By race and ethnicity: calibration of the LYFS-CT NoRace model and the counterfactual approach (ratio of expected to observed [E/O] outcomes), US individuals eligible for screening, predicted days of life gained from screening by LYFS-CT. Results: The NHIS 2015-2018 included 25 601 individuals aged 50 to 80 years who ever smoked (2769 African American, 649 Asian American, 1855 Hispanic American, and 20 328 White individuals). Removing race and ethnicity from the submodels underestimated lung cancer death risk (expected/observed [E/O], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.00) and all-cause mortality (E/O, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.94) in African American individuals. It also overestimated mortality in Hispanic American (E/O, 1.08, 95% CI, 1.00-1.16) and Asian American individuals (E/O, 1.14, 95% CI, 1.01-1.30). Consequently, the LYFS-CT NoRace model increased Hispanic American and Asian American eligibility by 108% and 73%, respectively, while reducing African American eligibility by 39%. Using LYFS-CT with the counterfactual all-cause mortality model better maintained calibration across groups and increased African American eligibility by 13% without reducing eligibility for Hispanic American and Asian American individuals. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, removing race and ethnicity miscalibrated LYFS-CT submodels and substantially reduced African American eligibility for lung cancer screening. Under counterfactual eligibility, no one became ineligible, and African American eligibility increased, demonstrating the potential for maintaining model accuracy while reducing disparities.
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.