ArticleBMJ oncology2024
Six-year performance of risk-based selection for lung cancer screening in the Manchester Lung Health Check cohort.
Article in BMJ oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cytokine signalling in vaginal epithelial cells: mechanistic insights into epithelial immunity and inflammatory milieu in vulvovaginal candidiasis.European cytokine network · 2026Review
- Eligibility and Prognostic Performance of Smoking Duration-Based Versus Pack-Year-Based U.S. National Lung Cancer Screening Criteria Across Racial and Ethnic Groups.Annals of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Review
- Patina of precision: risk models for lung cancer screening eligibility.BMJ oncology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Risk prediction models are used to determine eligibility for targeted lung cancer screening. However, prospective data regarding model performance in this setting are limited. Here we report the performance of the PLCO Methods and analysis: Calibration (expected/observed (E/O) lung cancer diagnoses over 6 years) and discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of PLCO Results: Out of 2541 attendees, 56% were high-risk (n=1430/2541) and offered screening; 44% were low-risk (n=1111/2541) and not screened. Over 6 years, 7.3% (n=105/1430) and 0.9% (n=10/1111) were diagnosed with lung cancer in the high and low-risk cohorts, respectively (p<0.0001). Risk was underestimated in both high-risk, screened (E/O 0.68 (0.57-0.82)) and low-risk, unscreened groups (E/O 0.61 (0.33-1.14)). Most other models also underestimated risk. Conclusion: Risk-based eligibility using 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.