ArticleCHEST pulmonary2026
Evaluation of Lung Cancer Probability Models and Guideline Recommendations in Settings With a High Prevalence of Cancer.
Article in CHEST pulmonary, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Guideline-recommended management of patients with pulmonary nodules includes assessing the probability of cancer before testing. The performance of 4 models (the Mayo, Brock, Veterans Affairs [VA], and Peking University [PKU] models) has been validated in several populations, but not in a high-prevalence setting. Research Question: What is the performance of lung cancer probability models within the context of a population with a high prevalence of lung cancer at a tertiary care center? Study Design and Methods: Clinical and radiologic data were reviewed retrospectively for 1,518 patients with 6- to 30-mm nodules referred to a pulmonologist or thoracic surgeon at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System Nashville Campus from 2002 through 2021 for evaluation and treatment of pulmonary nodules. Probability of cancer for each patient was calculated according to 4 validated models. Model performance was assessed based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC), calibration, sensitivity, and specificity. Results: Of the total cohort (N = 1,518), 1,098 patients (72.3%) harbored a malignant nodule. The Mayo model discriminated between patients with benign and malignant nodules with the highest area under the ROC curve (AUC), 0.74. The Brock and VA models performed similarly in cohort discrimination (AUC, 0.71 and 0.70, respectively), but the VA model was better calibrated (Brier score, 0.24). The PKU model discriminated between benign and malignant nodules with the lowest AUC (0.66), but the best calibration (Brier score, 0.19). Interpretation: The classification accuracy of the models did not differ greatly, but the calibration, and resulting sensitivity and specificity at guideline-recommended thresholds, was greatly dependent on the prevalence of cancer in the population in which the model was trained. The prevalence of cancer in the clinical setting should be considered when using a clinical prediction model for indeterminate pulmonary nodule management.
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.