ArticleCancer medicine2024
Reinforcement learning for individualized lung cancer screening schedules: A nested case-control study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 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.
- Reinforcement Learning and Its Clinical Applications Within Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Precision Medicine and Dynamic Treatment Regimes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Current Bioinformatics Tools in Precision Oncology.MedComm · 2025Review
- Reinforcement learning for individualized lung cancer screening schedules: A nested case-control study.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe current guidelines for managing screen-detected pulmonary nodules offer rule-based recommendations for immediate diagnostic work-up or follow-up at intervals of 3, 6, or 12 months. Customized visit plans are lacking. PURPOSE: To develop individualized screening schedules using reinforcement learning (RL) and evaluate the effectiveness of RL-based policy models.
methodsUsing a nested case-control design, we retrospectively identified 308 patients with cancer who had positive screening results in at least two screening rounds in the National Lung Screening Trial. We established a control group that included cancer-free patients with nodules, matched (1:1) according to the year of cancer diagnosis. By generating 10,164 sequence decision episodes, we trained RL-based policy models, incorporating nodule diameter alone, combined with nodule appearance (attenuation and margin) and/or patient information (age, sex, smoking status, pack-years, and family history). We calculated rates of misdiagnosis, missed diagnosis, and delayed diagnosis, and compared the performance of RL-based policy models with rule-based follow-up protocols (National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline; China Guideline for the Screening and Early Detection of Lung Cancer).
resultsWe identified significant interactions between certain variables (e.g., nodule shape and patient smoking pack-years, beyond those considered in guideline protocols) and the selection of follow-up testing intervals, thereby impacting the quality of the decision sequence. In validation, one RL-based policy model achieved rates of 12.3% for misdiagnosis, 9.7% for missed diagnosis, and 11.7% for delayed diagnosis. Compared with the two rule-based protocols, the three best-performing RL-based policy models consistently demonstrated optimal performance for specific patient subgroups based on disease characteristics (benign or malignant), nodule phenotypes (size, shape, and attenuation), and individual attributes.
conclusionsThis study highlights the potential of using an RL-based approach that is both clinically interpretable and performance-robust to develop personalized lung cancer screening schedules. Our findings present opportunities for enhancing the current cancer screening system.
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.