ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2025
Optimizing Strategy for Lung Cancer Screening: From Risk Prediction to Clinical Decision Support.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk prediction for lung cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-regression.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Pooled it
- Precision Medicine in Lung Cancer Screening: A Paradigm Shift in Early Detection-Precision Screening for Lung Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Personalized exercise programs in oncology.Oncology reviews · 2025Review
- Lung cancer immunotherapy in 2025: where we stand and what comes next?Frontiers in immunology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLow-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening is effective in reducing lung cancer mortality by detecting the disease at earlier, more treatable stages. However, high false-positive rates and the associated risks of subsequent invasive diagnostic procedures present significant challenges. This study proposes an advanced pipeline that integrates machine learning (ML) and causal inference techniques to optimize lung cancer screening decisions. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing real-world data from the OneFlorida+ Clinical Research Consortium, we developed ML models to predict individual lung cancer risk and estimate the benefits of LDCT screening. Explainable artificial intelligence techniques were applied to identify key risk factors, ensuring transparency and trust in the model's predictions. Causal ML methods were used to estimate individualized treatment effects of LDCT screening, answering the critical what-if question regarding risk reduction from LDCT.
resultsWe defined a high-risk cohort of 5,947 patients who underwent LDCT, along with matched controls, to evaluate the framework. Our models demonstrated predictive performance with AUCs of 0.777 and 0.793 for 1-year and 3-year risk predictions, respectively. Causal modeling showed a consistent reduction in lung cancer risk across different subgroups due to LDCT. Specifically, the doubly robust model showed an average risk reduction of 9.5% for males and 12% for females. Age-stratified results indicated a 9.5% reduction for individuals age 50-60 years, a 7.5% reduction for those age 60-70 years, and the largest reduction of 15.1% for the 70-80 age group.
conclusionIntegrating ML and causal inference into clinical workflows offers a robust tool for enhancing lung cancer screening. This pipeline provides accurate risk assessments and actionable insights tailored to individuals, empowering clinicians and patients to make informed screening decisions. The differential risk reduction across subgroups highlights the importance of personalized screening in improving outcomes for populations at risk of lung cancer.
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.