Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 494

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk‐based selection from the general population in a screening trial: Selection criteria, recruitment and power for the Dutch‐Belgian randomised lung cancer multi‐slice CT screening trial (NELSON)

Open access
van Iersel, Carola A., de Koning, Harry J., Draisma, Gerrit, Mali, Willem P.T.M., Scholten, Ernst Th., Nackaerts, Kristiaan, Prokop, Mathias, Habbema, J. Dik. F., Oudkerk, Mathijs, van Klaveren, Rob J.·2007·International Journal of Cancer

Abstract

A method to obtain the optimal selection criteria, taking into account available resources and capacity and the impact on power, is presented for the Dutch‐Belgian randomised lung cancer screening trial (NELSON). NELSON investigates whether 16‐detector multi‐slice computed tomography screening will decrease lung cancer mortality compared to no screening. A questionnaire was sent to 335,441 (mainly) men, aged 50–75. Smoking exposure (years smoked, cigarettes/day, years quit) was determined, and expected lung cancer mortality was estimated for different selection scenarios for the 106,931 respondents, using lung cancer mortality data by level of smoking exposure (US Cancer Prevention Study I and II). Selection criteria were chosen so that the required response among eligible subjects to reach sufficient sample size was minimised and the required sample size was within our capacity. Inviting current and former smokers (quit ≤ 10 years ago) who smoked >15 cigarettes/day during >25 years or >10 cigarettes/day during >30 years was most optimal. With a power of 80%, 17,300–27,900 participants are needed to show a 20–25% lung cancer mortality reduction 10 years after randomisation. Until October 18, 2005 11,103 (first recruitment round) and 4,325 (second recruitment round) (total = 15,428) participants have been randomised. Selecting participants for lung cancer screening trials based on risk estimates is feasible and helpful to minimize sample size and costs. When pooling with Danish trial data (n = ±4,000) NELSON is the only trial without screening in controls that is expected to have 80% power to show a lung cancer mortality reduction of at least 25% 10 years after randomisation. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ijc.22134

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Cited by

See all 494

Metadata

Authors
van Iersel, C. A., de Koning, H. J., Draisma, G., Mali, W. P. T. M., Scholten, E. T., Nackaerts, K., Prokop, M., Habbema, J. D. F., Oudkerk, M., & van Klaveren, R. J.
Venue
International Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-12-27
Volume
120
Issue
4
Pages
868-874
ISSN
  • 0020-7136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0215
OpenAlex
W2123239433
Cited by
494
References
25
FWCI
21.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk‐based selection from the general population in a screening trial: Selection criteria, recruitment and power for the Dutch‐Belgian randomised lung cancer multi‐slice CT screening trial (NELSON). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ijc.22134
The paper
van Iersel, C. A., de Koning, H. J., Draisma, G., Mali, W. P. T. M., Scholten, E. T., Nackaerts, K., Prokop, M., Habbema, J. D. F., Oudkerk, M., & van Klaveren, R. J. (2007). Risk‐based selection from the general population in a screening trial: Selection criteria, recruitment and power for the Dutch‐Belgian randomised lung cancer multi‐slice CT screening trial (NELSON). International Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22134

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.