ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2026
Equity gaps in pulmonary nodule risk prediction for never-smokers: a real-world evidence-informed narrative review and policy analysis.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Current lung cancer screening and pulmonary nodule management pathways were built largely around age, smoking exposure, and computed tomography (CT) morphology. These frameworks may under-recognize selected never-smoker subgroups because their risk scores often fall below conventional thresholds, especially East Asian women with molecularly enriched lung adenocarcinoma risk. This review evaluates whether real-world cohort evidence supports an equity concern in risk prediction and management for never-smokers with pulmonary nodules. Methods: We conducted targeted narrative evidence mapping of guideline documents, prediction model studies, external validation studies, East Asian never-smoker screening cohorts, molecular epidemiology studies, and diagnostic-delay outcome studies. Priority was given to peer-reviewed primary studies, prospective cohorts, guidelines, and official society statements. Commercial calculators, news reports, legal commentaries, and non-peer-reviewed secondary sources were excluded. Key Content and Findings: Smoking-centered screening eligibility remains the dominant entry point into low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening, while never-smokers are excluded. Cancer Screening Program in Urban China (CanSPUC)-derived Chinese risk models identified locally relevant predictors, including chronic respiratory disease, family history, menopause, education, tuberculosis history, and other non-tobacco factors. The Taiwan Lung Cancer Screening in Never-Smoker Trial (TALENT) prospective cohort showed clinically meaningful LDCT-detectable invasive lung cancer in selected never-smokers. Hospital-based persistent nodule cohorts suggest attenuation of screening-derived prediction models such as Brock when applied outside their original development setting. Model-based evidence from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) data indicates that diagnostic delays can reduce survival estimates for fast-growing early non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data show worse outcomes when surgery for clinical stage I NSCLC is delayed beyond 12 weeks. Molecular epidemiology further demonstrates that East Asian never-smoker lung adenocarcinoma is enriched for actionable drivers, particularly Conclusions: The available real-world evidence does not justify indiscriminate LDCT screening for all never-smokers. It supports recalibrated, equity-aware risk pathways for selected never-smoker subgroups. Reforms should include subgroup calibration of nodule models, incorporation of non-tobacco and molecular risk proxies, closed-loop incidental nodule tracking, and shared decision-making that addresses false-negative consequences in populations outside the training distribution of traditional models.
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.