ArticleLung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2025
Natural history models for lung Cancer: A scoping review.
Article in Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- Use of a natural history model to benchmark progress in managing ovarian cancer.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionNatural history models (NHMs) of lung cancer (LC) simulate the disease's natural progression providing a baseline for assessing the impact of interventions. NHMs have been increasingly used to inform public health policies, highlighting their utility. The objective of this scoping review was to summarize existing LC NHMs, identify their limitations, and propose a framework for future NHM development.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore from their inception to October 5, 2023, for peer-reviewed, full-length articles with an LC NHM. Model characteristics, their applications, data sources used, and limitations were extracted and narratively synthesized.
resultsFrom 238 publications, 69 publications were included in our review, corresponding to 22 original LC NHMs and 47 model applications. The majority of the models (n = 15, 68 %) used a microsimulation approach. NHM parameters were predominately informed by cancer registries, trial and institutional data, and literature. Model quality and performance were evaluated in 8 (36 %) models. Twenty (91 %) models included at least one carcinogenesis risk factor-primarily age, sex, and smoking history. Three (14 %) LC NHMs modeled progression in never-smokers; one (5 %) addressed recurrence. Non-tobacco smoking, nodule type, and biomarker expression were not considered in existing NHMs. Based on our findings, we proposed a framework for future LC NHM development which incorporates recurrence, nodule type differentiation, biomarker expression levels, biological factors, and non-smoking-related risk factors.
conclusionRegular updating and future research are warranted to address limitations in existing NHMs thereby ensuring relevance and accuracy of modeling approaches in the evolving LC landscape.
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.