Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37788223›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2023

Assessing eligibility for lung cancer screening using parsimonious ensemble machine learning models: A development and validation study.

Thomas Callender, Fergus Imrie, Bogdan Cebere, Nora Pashayan, Neal Navani, Mihaela van der Schaar, Sam M Janes

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Risk prediction for lung cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-regression.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Evaluating XAI techniques under class imbalance using CPRD data.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Lung cancer screening: where do we stand?Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2024
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Thomas CallenderDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8440-9433
Fergus ImrieDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6241-0123
Bogdan CebereDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Nora PashayanDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Neal NavaniDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6412-7516
Mihaela van der SchaarDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Sam M JanesDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
University College London · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

Cancer Research UK 28706Cancer Research UK EDDCPGM\100002Medical Research Council MR/T02481X/1Medical Research Council MR/W025051/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 222890/Z/21/Z
6 · The paper itself

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

Lung NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHumansMachine LearningMaleMass ScreeningProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID37788223
PMCPMC10547178
OpenAlexW4387305900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.