ArticlePLoS medicine2023
Assessing eligibility for lung cancer screening using parsimonious ensemble machine learning models: A development and validation study.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk prediction for lung cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-regression.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Pooled it
- ESR Essentials: lung cancer screening with low-dose CT-practice recommendations by the European Society of Thoracic Imaging.European radiology · 2026Guideline
- Use and impact of risk-based eligibility models in low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening: a systematic review.Public health reviews · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of lung cancer risk prediction models.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Pooled it
- Brief Report: Translating Selection Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening to an Indian Context-An Analysis From a Tertiary Health Centre.JTO clinical and research reports · 2026Article
- Interpretable machine learning enables early identification of financial risk and resource optimization in colorectal cancer surgery.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Lung Cancer: Advances in Imaging, Detection, and Prognosis.Cancers · 2025Review
- Assessment and recalibration of seventeen lung cancer risk prediction models in approximately one million Chinese population utilising healthcare big data: a retrospective cohort analysis.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Machine learning-based model for predicting all-cause mortality in severe pneumonia.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Head-to-head comparisons of risk discrimination by questionnaire-based lung cancer risk prediction models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating XAI techniques under class imbalance using CPRD data.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Evaluation of risk prediction models to select lung cancer screening participants in Europe: a prospective cohort consortium analysis.The Lancet. Digital health · 2024Article
- Lung cancer screening: where do we stand?Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2024Review
- Precision Medicine-Are We There Yet? A Narrative Review of Precision Medicine's Applicability in Primary Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Six-year performance of risk-based selection for lung cancer screening in the Manchester Lung Health Check cohort.BMJ oncology · 2024Article
- Developing a risk prediction tool for lung cancer in Kent and Medway, England: cohort study using linked data.BJC reports · 2023Article
- AutoPrognosis 2.0: Democratizing diagnostic and prognostic modeling in healthcare with automated machine learning.PLOS digital health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRisk-based screening for lung cancer is currently being considered in several countries; however, the optimal approach to determine eligibility remains unclear. Ensemble machine learning could support the development of highly parsimonious prediction models that maintain the performance of more complex models while maximising simplicity and generalisability, supporting the widespread adoption of personalised screening. In this work, we aimed to develop and validate ensemble machine learning models to determine eligibility for risk-based lung cancer screening. METHODS AND
findingsFor model development, we used data from 216,714 ever-smokers recruited between 2006 and 2010 to the UK Biobank prospective cohort and 26,616 high-risk ever-smokers recruited between 2002 and 2004 to the control arm of the US National Lung Screening (NLST) randomised controlled trial. The NLST trial randomised high-risk smokers from 33 US centres with at least a 30 pack-year smoking history and fewer than 15 quit-years to annual CT or chest radiography screening for lung cancer. We externally validated our models among 49,593 participants in the chest radiography arm and all 80,659 ever-smoking participants in the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Screening Trial. The PLCO trial, recruiting from 1993 to 2001, analysed the impact of chest radiography or no chest radiography for lung cancer screening. We primarily validated in the PLCO chest radiography arm such that we could benchmark against comparator models developed within the PLCO control arm. Models were developed to predict the risk of 2 outcomes within 5 years from baseline: diagnosis of lung cancer and death from lung cancer. We assessed model discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve, AUC), calibration (calibration curves and expected/observed ratio), overall performance (Brier scores), and net benefit with decision curve analysis. Models predicting lung cancer death (UCL-D) and incidence (UCL-I) using 3 variables-age, smoking duration, and pack-years-achieved or exceeded parity in discrimination, overall performance, and net benefit with comparators currently in use, despite requiring only one-quarter of the predictors. In external validation in the PLCO trial, UCL-D had an AUC of 0.803 (95% CI: 0.783, 0.824) and was well calibrated with an expected/observed (E/O) ratio of 1.05 (95% CI: 0.95, 1.19). UCL-I had an AUC of 0.787 (95% CI: 0.771, 0.802), an E/O ratio of 1.0 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.07). The sensitivity of UCL-D was 85.5% and UCL-I was 83.9%, at 5-year risk thresholds of 0.68% and 1.17%, respectively, 7.9% and 6.2% higher than the USPSTF-2021 criteria at the same specificity. The main limitation of this study is that the models have not been validated outside of UK and US cohorts.
conclusionsWe present parsimonious ensemble machine learning models to predict the risk of lung cancer in ever-smokers, demonstrating a novel approach that could simplify the implementation of risk-based lung cancer screening in multiple settings.
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.