Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 575

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

Targeting of Low-Dose CT Screening According to the Risk of Lung-Cancer Death

Open access
Kovalchik, Stephanie A., Tammemagi, Martin, Berg, Christine D., Caporaso, Neil E., Riley, Tom L., Korch, Mary, Silvestri, Gerard A., Chaturvedi, Anil K., Katki, Hormuzd A.·2013·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) resulted in a 20% reduction in lung-cancer mortality among participants between the ages of 55 and 74 years with a minimum of 30 pack-years of smoking and no more than 15 years since quitting. It is not known whether the benefits and potential harms of such screening vary according to lung-cancer risk. METHODS: We assessed the variation in efficacy, the number of false positive results, and the number of lung-cancer deaths prevented among 26,604 participants in the NLST who underwent low-dose CT screening, as compared with the 26,554 participants who underwent chest radiography, according to the quintile of 5-year risk of lung-cancer death (ranging from 0.15 to 0.55% in the lowest-risk group [quintile 1] to more than 2.00% in the highest-risk group [quintile 5]). RESULTS: The number of lung-cancer deaths per 10,000 person-years that were prevented in the CT-screening group, as compared with the radiography group, increased according to risk quintile (0.2 in quintile 1, 3.5 in quintile 2, 5.1 in quintile 3, 11.0 in quintile 4, and 12.0 in quintile 5; P=0.01 for trend). Across risk quintiles, there were significant decreasing trends in the number of participants with false positive results per screening-prevented lung-cancer death (1648 in quintile 1, 181 in quintile 2, 147 in quintile 3, 64 in quintile 4, and 65 in quintile 5). The 60% of participants at highest risk for lung-cancer death (quintiles 3 through 5) accounted for 88% of the screening-prevented lung-cancer deaths and for 64% of participants with false positive results. The 20% of participants at lowest risk (quintile 1) accounted for only 1% of prevented lung-cancer deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Screening with low-dose CT prevented the greatest number of deaths from lung cancer among participants who were at highest risk and prevented very few deaths among those at lowest risk. These findings provide empirical support for risk-based targeting of smokers for such screening. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute.).

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/nejmoa1301851

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 575

Metadata

Authors
Kovalchik, S. A., Tammemagi, M., Berg, C. D., Caporaso, N. E., Riley, T. L., Korch, M., Silvestri, G. A., Chaturvedi, A. K., & Katki, H. A.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2013-07-18
Volume
369
Issue
3
Pages
245-254
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2156275503
Cited by
575
References
2
FWCI
49.45
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: Targeting of Low-Dose CT Screening According to the Risk of Lung-Cancer Death. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1301851
The paper
Kovalchik, S. A., Tammemagi, M., Berg, C. D., Caporaso, N. E., Riley, T. L., Korch, M., Silvestri, G. A., Chaturvedi, A. K., & Katki, H. A. (2013). Targeting of Low-Dose CT Screening According to the Risk of Lung-Cancer Death. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1301851

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.