Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42575400›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2026

Variability Among Radiologists in Interpreting Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screens.

Paul F Pinsky, Ella Kazerooni, Gerard Silvestri, Raymond U Osarogiagbon, Farhood Farjah, Eric Miller, Lindsey Enewold, Louise Henderson, Danielle Durham, Robert A Smith and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Paul F PinskyChief, Early Detection Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: pp4f@nih.gov.
Ella KazerooniUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Chair, ACR Committee on Lung Cancer Screening.
Gerard SilvestriMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Raymond U OsarogiagbonBaptist Medical Center, Memphis, Tennessee.
Farhood FarjahUniversity of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Eric MillerNational Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Lindsey EnewoldNational Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Louise HendersonUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Danielle DurhamUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robert A SmithAmerican Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia.
Philip ConnorCoverage and Analysis Group, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, CMS, Baltimore, Maryland.
Andrew WardCoverage and Analysis Group, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, CMS, Baltimore, Maryland; Director, Evidence Development Division Within the Coverage and Analysis Group in the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
V Paul Doria-RoseNational Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality, but false-positive tests remain a concern. Radiologist variability in interpreting LDCT scans may contribute to higher false-positive rates (FPRs).

methodsRadiologists were identified from the LCS registry maintained by the ACR. Registry data were merged with Medicare files to create an LCS registry-Medicare database. Radiologists with ≥50 baseline or ≥50 postbaseline LDCT screens in the database were included in the analysis. The sensitivity and FPR were defined as the proportion of positive (Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System 3-4) screens among those with and without a lung cancer diagnosis, respectively. Distributions, including median and interquartile range, of radiologists' FPRs were evaluated based on observed data and mixed-effects models, in which the radiologist was the random effect. Sensitivity was computed on an aggregate level based on radiologists' FPR quartiles.

resultsIn all, 1,130 radiologists read ≥50 baseline screens, and 935 read ≥50 postbaseline screens. Median (interquartile range) FPR for baseline screens was 15.9% (11.3%-21.8%) and 16.3% (11.8%-21.8%) based on observed data and the mixed-effects model, respectively. Corresponding values for postbaseline screens were 8.5% (5.7%-12.8%) and 8.8% (6.3%-11.8%). Sensitivity increased significantly with radiologist FPR quartile for baseline and postbaseline screens. For baseline screens, radiologists in the lower two FPR quartiles had aggregate FPR and sensitivity of 10.9% and 89.6%, respectively, versus 24.1% and 94.4% for radiologists in the upper two quartiles.

conclusionsVariability in radiologists' FPRs with LDCT screening was high. Higher FPRs were associated with increased sensitivity rates.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEarly Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsRadiologistsTomography, X-Ray ComputedFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansMaleObserver VariationRadiation DosageRegistriesSensitivity and SpecificityUnited StatesLow-dose CTlung cancerradiologist variabilityscreeningsensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID42575400
PMCPMC13521112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.