Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 550

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Results of the Two Incidence Screenings in the National Lung Screening Trial

Open access
Aberle, Denise R., DeMello, Sarah, Berg, Christine D., Black, William C., Brewer, Brenda, Church, Timothy R., Clingan, Kathy L., Duan, Fenghai, Fagerstrom, Richard M., Gareen, Ilana F., Gatsonis, Constantine A., Gierada, David S., Jain, Amanda, Jones, Gordon C., Mahon, Irene, Marcus, Pamela M., Rathmell, Joshua M., Sicks, JoRean·2013·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial was conducted to determine whether three annual screenings (rounds T0, T1, and T2) with low-dose helical computed tomography (CT), as compared with chest radiography, could reduce mortality from lung cancer. We present detailed findings from the first two incidence screenings (rounds T1 and T2). METHODS: We evaluated the rate of adherence of the participants to the screening protocol, the results of screening and downstream diagnostic tests, features of the lung-cancer cases, and first-line treatments, and we estimated the performance characteristics of both screening methods. RESULTS: At the T1 and T2 rounds, positive screening results were observed in 27.9% and 16.8% of participants in the low-dose CT group and in 6.2% and 5.0% of participants in the radiography group, respectively. In the low-dose CT group, the sensitivity was 94.4%, the specificity was 72.6%, the positive predictive value was 2.4%, and the negative predictive value was 99.9% at T1; at T2, the positive predictive value increased to 5.2%. In the radiography group, the sensitivity was 59.6%, the specificity was 94.1%, the positive predictive value was 4.4%, and the negative predictive value was 99.8% at T1; both the sensitivity and the positive predictive value increased at T2. Among lung cancers of known stage, 87 (47.5%) were stage IA and 57 (31.1%) were stage III or IV in the low-dose CT group at T1; in the radiography group, 31 (23.5%) were stage IA and 78 (59.1%) were stage III or IV at T1. These differences in stage distribution between groups persisted at T2. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose CT was more sensitive in detecting early-stage lung cancers, but its measured positive predictive value was lower than that of radiography. As compared with radiography, the two annual incidence screenings with low-dose CT resulted in a decrease in the number of advanced-stage cancers diagnosed and an increase in the number of early-stage lung cancers diagnosed. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; NLST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa1208962

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 550

Metadata

Authors
Aberle, D. R., DeMello, S., Berg, C. D., Black, W. C., Brewer, B., Church, T. R., Clingan, K. L., Duan, F., Fagerstrom, R. M., Gareen, I. F., Gatsonis, C. A., Gierada, D. S., Jain, A., Jones, G. C., Mahon, I., Marcus, P. M., Rathmell, J. M., & Sicks, J.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2013-09-05
Volume
369
Issue
10
Pages
920-931
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2152474505
Cited by
550
References
2
FWCI
41.65
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: Results of the Two Incidence Screenings in the National Lung Screening Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1208962
The paper
Aberle, D. R., DeMello, S., Berg, C. D., Black, W. C., Brewer, B., Church, T. R., Clingan, K. L., Duan, F., Fagerstrom, R. M., Gareen, I. F., Gatsonis, C. A., Gierada, D. S., Jain, A., Jones, G. C., Mahon, I., Marcus, P. M., Rathmell, J. M., & Sicks, J. (2013). Results of the Two Incidence Screenings in the National Lung Screening Trial. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1208962

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.