ArticleJTO clinical and research reports2025
Brief Report: Precision Language and Deletion of the "S" Word.
Article in JTO clinical and research reports, 2025. 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.
- Reducing Stigma in Lung Cancer Screening: Co-Design of a Targeted Resource for Health Professionals in Australia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Article
- Embracing Compassion for People Facing Lung Cancer-The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable.Annals of internal medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: In 2021, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) published the IASLC Language Guide as guidance on preferred language and phrasing in oral and written communications, including presentations at conferences. This study analyzed presentations from the 2022 IASLC World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) one year after implementation of the Language Guide to identify adoption rates of non-stigmatizing language and to determine correlations with presenter characteristics. Methods: We downloaded 522 slide presentations from the IASLC WCLC 2022 conference attendee portal. We searched each presentation, including images, for discussion of tobacco use and the use of the term "smoker," which is an indicator of stigmatizing language. We conducted internet searches to gather presenters' stated home continent, sex, specialty, and professional degree. Results: Of 177 presentations that discussed smoking status, 77 presenters used non-stigmatizing language, whereas 100 presenters used the stigmatizing term "smoker." Male MDs and female PhDs and non-medicine subspecialties and advocates were more likely to use non-stigmatizing language. Conclusions: Encouragingly, only after one year post-release of the Language Guide, more than one-third of the presenters at the WCLC used non-stigmatizing language. This finding represents a step toward improving respectful and inclusive language surrounding smoking within the thoracic oncology community.
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.