ArticleThe Lancet. Digital health2024
Evaluation of risk prediction models to select lung cancer screening participants in Europe: a prospective cohort consortium analysis.
Article in The Lancet. Digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Use and impact of risk-based eligibility models in low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening: a systematic review.Public health reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Improving lung cancer screening diagnostic efficiency.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026Review
- Over- and underscreening for lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Review
- Article
- Blood-based DNA methylation marker model for short-term and long-term lung cancer risk prediction.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Research on Risk Transfer Pathways for Lung Cancer Among Middle-Aged and Older Individuals Using Deep Reinforcement Learning: Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- From evidence to action: the IARC's role in strengthening cancer prevention and early detection.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2026Review
- Next-generation proteomics improves lung cancer risk prediction.Molecular oncology · 2026Article
- Feasibility of lung cancer screening in low-risk populations of the Nordic countries.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- Article
- Neglected Occupational Risk Factors-A Contributor to Diagnostic Delays in Lung Cancer.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Advances in the Basic Sciences in Thoracic Oncology in the Last 20 Years and Their Translational Impact.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2026Review
- Lung cancer screening in transition: highlights from the 3rd Oslo Lung Cancer Symposium, 2025.European clinical respiratory journal · 2026Article
- Defining eligibility for lung cancer screening based on individual risk.The Lancet. Oncology · 2025Article
- Structured narrative review on lung cancer screening: current evidence, clinical practice implications and implementation insights from a multidisciplinary task force and patient representatives.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025Review
- External Validation of Lung Cancer Prediction Models Combining Epidemiological Predictors in Chinese Ever and Never Smokers: Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Precision Medicine in Lung Cancer Screening: A Paradigm Shift in Early Detection-Precision Screening for Lung Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Enhancing Pulmonary Disease Prediction Using Large Language Models With Feature Summarization and Hybrid Retrieval-Augmented Generation: Multicenter Methodological Study Based on Radiology Report.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer risk prediction models might efficiently identify individuals who should be offered lung cancer screening. However, their performance has not been comprehensively evaluated in Europe. We aimed to externally validate and evaluate the performance of several risk prediction models that predict lung cancer incidence or mortality in prospective European cohorts.
methodsWe analysed 240 137 participants aged 45-80 years with a current or former smoking history from nine European countries in four prospective cohorts from the pooled database of the Lung Cancer Cohort Consortium: the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study (Finland), the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (Norway), CONSTANCES (France), and the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (Denmark, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Norway). We evaluated ten lung cancer risk models, which comprised the Bach, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial 2012 model (PLCO
findingsAmong the participants, 1734 lung cancer cases and 1072 lung cancer deaths occurred within five years of enrolment. Most models had reasonable calibration in most countries, although the LLP version 2 overpredicted risk by more than 50% in eight countries (expected to observed ≥1·50). The PLCO
interpretationSeveral lung cancer risk prediction models showed good performance in European countries and might improve the efficiency of lung cancer screening if used in place of categorical eligibility criteria.
fundingUS National Cancer Institute, l'Institut National du Cancer, Cancer Research UK.
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.