Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40356086›Full record

SynthesisActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2025

A systematic review and meta-analysis of lung cancer risk prediction models.

Ghida Khalife, Matilda Nilsson, Lotta Peltola, Juho Waris, Antti Jekunen, Riikka-Leena Leskelä, Heidi Andersén, Mikko Nuutinen, Eija Heikkilä, Susanna Nurmi-Rantala and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Ghida KhalifeDepartment of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. ghida.khalife@helsinki.fi.ORCID 0009-0003-6756-8098
Matilda NilssonDepartment of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Lotta PeltolaDepartment of Oncology, Vaasa Central Hospital, Vaasa, Finland.
Juho WarisDepartment of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Antti JekunenCancer Clinic, Vaasa Central Hospital, Vaasa, Finland; Faculty of Medicine, Oncology Department, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-6183-0169
Riikka-Leena LeskeläDepartment of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; Nordic Healthcare Group, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-9255-2958
Heidi AndersénCancer Clinic, Vaasa Central Hospital, Vaasa, Finland; Faculty of Medicine, Oncology Department, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-5923-5865
Mikko NuutinenNordic Healthcare Group, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-7429-3710
Eija HeikkiläNordic Healthcare Group, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-3736-8410
Susanna Nurmi-RantalaMSD Finland, Espoo, Finland.ORCID 0009-0003-2161-903X
Paulus TorkkiDepartment of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-1127-4205

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLung cancer (LC) remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Early detection through targeted screening significantly improves patient outcomes. However, identifying high-risk individuals remains a critical challenge. PURPOSE: This systematic review evaluates externally validated LC risk prediction models to assess their performance and potential applicability in screening strategies.

methodsOf the 11,805 initial studies, 66 met inclusion criteria and 38 published mainly between 2020 and 2024 were included in the final analysis. Model methodologies, validation approaches, and performance metrics were extracted and compared.

resultsThe review identified 18 models utilising conventional machine learning, six employing neural networks, and 14 comparing different predictive frameworks. The Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCOm2012) demonstrated superior sensitivity across diverse populations, while newer models, such as Optimized Early Warning model for Lung cancer risk (OWL) and CanPredict, showed promising results. However, differences in population demographics and healthcare systems may limit the generalisability of these models.

interpretationWhile LC risk prediction models have advanced, their applicability to specific healthcare systems, such as Finland's, requires further adaptation and validation. Future research should focus on optimising these models for local contexts to improve clinical impact and cost-effectiveness in targeted screening programmes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022321391.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsHumansMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID40356086
PMCPMC12086449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.