ArticleCHEST pulmonary2025
Concordance of a Web-based Lung Cancer Risk Self-Assessment Tool With Nursing Risk Assessment.
Article in CHEST pulmonary, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Alberta Lung Cancer Screening Program implemented a web-based risk self-assessment tool using the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, Ovarian Model 2012 (PLCOm2012) model. To determine the accuracy of individual self-risk assessments, this study compared user online entries with program nurse assessments. Research Question: Is the web-based lung cancer risk self-assessment tool based on the PLCOm2012 model accurate in predicting lung cancer risk among Albertans aged 50 to 74 years when incorporated into an existing lung cancer screening program? Study Design and Methods: This retrospective study used administrative data from the Alberta Lung Cancer Screening Program, which was designed to enroll 3,800 participants from September 2022 to September 2024. All self-referrals from the web tool with a risk score ≥ 1.5% were included up to July 2024. Concordance was assessed between web entries and matched nurse assessments and the impact of discordant lung cancer risks estimated. Result: A total of 384 matched entries were analyzed. The mean age of the participants was 64 ± 6 years, and most were currently smoking (61%). The study revealed high (> 95%) concordance between web entries and nurse assessments; concordance for education, smoking intensity, and smoking duration were slightly lower (90%-92%). Although a discrepancy in at least 1 value was common (32%), this resulted in an eligible participant being re-categorized as ineligible only in 3.7% of cases. Overall, 65% of participants had concordant PLCOm2012 risk scores (within 0.1%). The differences in PLCOm2012 risk between web and nurse entries ranged from - 3% to 2.5%. Interpretation: This study described the feasibility of implementing a web-based lung cancer risk self-assessment tool based on the PLCOm2012 model and found a high concordance of discrete data points between the web entries and nurse entries. However, at least 1 value was discordant in one-third of the participants, and this occasionally affected risk scores. Confirmation of lung cancer risk by a health care provider remains important prior to screening.
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.