ArticleCHEST pulmonary2024
The Lung Cancer Prediction Model "Stress Test": Assessment of Models' Performance in a High-Risk Prospective Pulmonary Nodule Cohort.
Article in CHEST pulmonary, 2024. 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.
- Development and validation of a risk prediction model of prehospital delay in patients with acute ischemic stroke.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Radiomic 'Stress Test': exploration of a deep learning radiomic model in a high-risk prospective lung nodule cohort.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary nodules represent a growing health care burden because of delayed diagnosis of malignant lesions and overtesting for benign processes. Clinical prediction models were developed to inform physician assessment of pretest probability of nodule malignancy but have not been validated in a high-risk cohort of nodules for which biopsy was ultimately performed. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do guideline-recommended prediction models sufficiently discriminate between benign and malignant nodules when applied to cases referred for biopsy by navigational bronchoscopy? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsWe assembled a prospective cohort of 322 indeterminate pulmonary nodules in 282 patients referred to a tertiary medical center for diagnostic navigational bronchoscopy between 2017 and 2019. We calculated the probability of malignancy for each nodule using the Brock model, Mayo Clinic model, and Veterans Affairs (VA) model. On a subset of 168 patients who also had PET-CT scans before biopsy, we also calculated the probability of malignancy using the Herder model. The performance of the models was evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) for each model.
resultsThe study cohort contained 185 malignant and 137 benign nodules (57% prevalence of malignancy). The malignant and benign cohorts were similar in terms of size, with a median longest diameter for benign and malignant nodules of 15 and 16 mm, respectively. The Brock model, Mayo Clinic model, and VA model showed similar performance in the entire cohort (Brock AUC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.64-0.76; Mayo Clinic AUC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.64-0.76; VA AUC, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.62-0.74). For 168 nodules with available PET-CT scans, the Herder model had an AUC of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.85).
interpretationCurrently available clinical models provide insufficient discrimination between benign and malignant nodules in the common clinical scenario in which a patient is being referred for biopsy, especially when PET-CT scan information is not available.
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.