SynthesisScientific reports2025
Predictive performance of risk prediction models for lung cancer incidence in Western and Asian countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prediction models for early detection and diagnosis of lung cancer in people who have never smoked: a systematic review and critical appraisal.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Pooled 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
- Effectiveness of electrical stimulation for postoperative rehabilitation of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
- Acceptance of Lung Cancer Screening and Associated Factors in Hong Kong: A Population-Based Study.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Lymphocyte CD4/CD8 ratio predicts early immune-related toxicity in lung cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Advances in the chemo‑preventive effects and mechanisms of ursolic acid against lung cancer (Review).Oncology reports · 2025Review
- Precision Medicine in Lung Cancer Screening: A Paradigm Shift in Early Detection-Precision Screening for Lung Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerous prediction models have been developed to identify high-risk individuals for lung cancer screening, with the aim of improving early detection and survival rates. However, no comprehensive review or meta-analysis has assessed the performance of these models across different sociocultural contexts. Therefore, this review systematically examines the performance of lung cancer risk prediction models in Western and Asian populations. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception through January 2023. Studies published in English that proposed a validated model on human populations with well-defined predictive performances were included. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts, and the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess study quality. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for model performance was reported. Between-study heterogeneity was adjusted for using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Honkman test. A total of 54 studies were included, with 42 from Western countries and 12 from Asian countries. Most Western studies focused on ever-smokers (19/42; 45.2%) and the general population (17/42; 40.5%), and only two Asian studies developed models exclusively for never-smokers. Across both Western and Asian prediction models, the three most consistently included risk factors were age, sex, and family cancer history. In 45.2% (19/42) of Western and 50.0% (6/12) of Asian studies, models incorporated both traditional risk factors and biomarkers. In addition, 14.8% (8/54) of the studies directly compared biomarker-based models with those incorporating only traditional risk factors, demonstrating improved discrimination. Machine-learning algorithms were applied in eight Western models and two Asian models. External validation of PLCO
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.