ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
A Novel Automated Algorithm to Identify Lung Cancer Screening from Free Text of Radiology Orders.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended for asymptomatic patients. Administrative codes for LCS may capture tests prompted by signs/symptoms.
objectiveTo validate an automated algorithm that identifies LCS among asymptomatic patients.
designIn this cross-sectional study, an algorithm was iteratively developed to identify outpatient low-dose chest CT scans via Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, search free text of radiology orders for screening terms and signs/symptoms (e.g., cough), and classify scans as screening or not.
participantsNational population-based sample of 4503 adults ages 65-80 in Veterans Health Affairs primary care, with detailed smoking history to identify LCS-eligible individuals (30 + pack-years, current tobacco use, or quit < 15 years prior). MAIN MEASURES: Algorithm specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) relative to manual chart review (gold standard) on 100% of screening scans and > 10% random sample of non-screening scans. KEY
resultsChart review was conducted on n = 335 scans. The final algorithm could not classify 22% of scans, of which 73% were non-screening; these were excluded from primary analyses. Among 842 LCS-eligible individuals, the algorithm demonstrated 97% sensitivity (95%CI 91-99%) and 79% specificity (58-93%). Only 69% (61-77%) of scans classified as LCS via administrative codes were truly screening, compared to 95% of those classified as screening via the algorithm (p < 0.001). Algorithm performance was similar regardless of LCS eligibility, with 90% PPV (84-94%) and 93% NPV (86-97%) in the overall population regardless of tobacco cigarette history.
conclusionsAn automated algorithm can accurately identify screening versus diagnostic chest imaging, a necessary step to unbiased analyses of LCS in non-randomized settings. Studies should assess the accuracy of administrative codes for LCS in other health systems.
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.