Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39887592›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2025

Lung Cancer Detection Using Bayesian Networks: A Retrospective Development and Validation Study on a Danish Population of High-Risk Individuals.

Margrethe Bang Henriksen, Florian Van Daalen, Leonard Wee, Torben Frøstrup Hansen, Lars Henrik Jensen, Claus Lohman Brasen, Ole Hilberg, Inigo Bermejo

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Margrethe Bang HenriksenDepartment of Oncology, Vejle University Hospital, Vejle, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1245-8874
Florian Van DaalenDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO) GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2229-8587
Leonard WeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO) GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1612-9055
Torben Frøstrup HansenDepartment of Oncology, Vejle University Hospital, Vejle, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7476-671X
Lars Henrik JensenDepartment of Oncology, Vejle University Hospital, Vejle, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0020-1537
Claus Lohman BrasenInstitute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8654-2449
Ole HilbergInstitute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3075-3463
Inigo BermejoDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO) GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9105-8088

Funding

Beckett-FondenDagmar Marshalls FondFamilien Hede Nielsens FondLilly and Herbert Hansens FoundationRegion SyddanmarkSyddansk UniversitetThe Danish National Research Center for Lung Cancer, Danish Cancer Society R198-A14299
6 · The paper itself

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

Early Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsAgedBayes TheoremDenmarkFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID39887592
PMCPMC11783238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.