ArticleAnnals of thoracic surgery short reports2026
Use of the TREAT 2.0 Model to Create a Web-Based Lung Nodule Calculator for High-Risk Patients.
Article in Annals of thoracic surgery short reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Indeterminate pulmonary nodules are common in clinical practice. The probability of cancer drives management decisions and depends on age, smoking, size, positron emission tomography avidity, growth, and the clinical setting, among other variables. We developed a web-based calculator for clinician use, using the Thoracic Research Evaluation and Treatment (TREAT) 2.0 model, previously developed by our group. This study evaluated calculator accuracy when the most common missing data patterns in the clinical setting occurred. Methods: A web-based calculator was designed for clinical use of the TREAT 2.0 model. We used a parsimonious modeling approach to select the 8 most important missing data patterns. Model accuracy and discrimination were evaluated using area under the curve (AUC) and Brier scores. Bootstrap internal validation was used for overfit correction. Results: The AUC for the complete cases (all 13 variables) was 0.91(CI: 0.87-0.92), and it was 0.83 (CI: 0.77-0.88) for the training and validation data sets, respectively, with a Brier score of 0.11. The mean AUC for the 8 most common missing variable submodels included in the calculator was 0.79, with a Brier score of 0.14 in the validation data set. Conclusions: The TREAT 2.0 calculator provides reliable risk predictions for indeterminate pulmonary nodules being evaluated in high-cancer prevalence settings while maintaining accuracy with incomplete input of the most common missing variables in clinical practice.
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.