ArticleCancer medicine2025
Lung Cancer Detection Using Bayesian Networks: A Retrospective Development and Validation Study on a Danish Population of High-Risk Individuals.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer (LC) is the top cause of cancer deaths globally, prompting many countries to adopt LC screening programs. While screening typically relies on age and smoking intensity, more efficient risk models exist. We devised a Bayesian network (BN) for LC detection, testing its resilience with varying degrees of missing data and comparing it to a prior machine learning (ML) model.
methodsWe analyzed data from 9940 patients referred for LC assessment in Southern Denmark from 2009 to 2018. Variables included age, sex, smoking, and lab results. Our experiments varied missing data (0%-30%), BN structure (expert-based vs. data-driven), and discretization method (standard vs. data-driven).
resultsAcross all missing data levels, area under the curve (AUC) remained steady, ranging from 0.737 to 0.757, compared to the ML model's AUC of 0.77. BN structure and discretization method had minimal impact on performance. BNs were well calibrated overall, with a net benefit in decision curve analysis when predicted risk exceeded 5%.
conclusionBN models showed resilience with up to 30% missing values. Moreover, these BNs exhibited similar performance, calibration, and clinical utility compared to the machine learning model developed using the same dataset. Considering their effectiveness in handling missing data, BNs emerge as a relevant method for the development of future lung cancer detection models.
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.