ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2025
Differentiating clinically important interstitial lung abnormalities in lung cancer screening.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Critical dialogue: Interstitial lung abnormalities: an evolving concept.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Interstitial lung abnormalities: a mechanistic window into early fibrotic lung disease.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Lung ultrasound outperforms symptom-based screening to detect interstitial lung disease associated with rheumatoid arthritis.RMD open · 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
32 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInterstitial lung abnormalities (ILAs) are common incidental findings in lung cancer screening (LCS). However, challenges remain in identifying clinically relevant ILAs as highlighted in a joint statement by a European multidisciplinary task force led by the European Respiratory Society (ERS). To address these challenges, we analysed ILAs identified in one of Europe's largest LCS studies.
methodsOf 11 635 LCS individuals, 417 screen-detected ILAs were evaluated using a new visual classification system focused on traction bronchiolectasis: non-fibrotic ILA (no traction bronchiolectasis), fibrotic ILA (traction bronchiolectasis in ≤2 lobes); undiagnosed interstitial lung disease (traction bronchiolectasis in >2 lobes). Observer agreement was compared with Fleischner Society ILA classification using Cohen's Kappa. An age, sex and smoking history-matched control group allowed the examination of associations between baseline ILA/UILD and comorbidities, forced vital capacity (FVC), hospitalisations (Student's t-tests) and mortality (univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models).
findingsOur visual ILA classification showed superior interobserver agreement (K=0.76) versus the Fleischner ILA classification (K=0.64). ILA/UILD subjects had more prevalent comorbidities, increasing (vs controls) approximately 10 years prior to ILA/UILD diagnosis. Compared with controls, mortality rates were 6-fold higher for UILD participants and 3-fold higher for fibrotic and non-fibrotic ILA subtypes. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, ILA/UILD presence (HR=4.90, 95% CI =2.36 to 10.10, p<0.001) showed stronger independent associations with mortality than baseline FVC (HR=0.98, 95% CI =0.96 to 1.00, p=0.04).
conclusionWe demonstrate a new reproducible classification of clinically important ILA/UILDs in LCS populations. We highlight that FVC shows limited associations with mortality in ILA/UILD subjects. Increased multiorgan comorbidity in ILA/UILD subjects highlights a need for comprehensive early multisystem evaluation.
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.