ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2026
Variability Among Radiologists in Interpreting Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screens.
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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
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
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.