Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 642

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Variations in Lung Cancer Risk Among Smokers

Bach, Peter B., Kattan, Michael W., Thornquist, Mark D., Kris, Mark G., Tate, Ramsey C., Barnett, Matt J., Hsieh, Lillian J., Begg, Colin B.·2003·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although there is no proven benefit associated with screening for lung cancer, screening programs are attracting many individuals who perceive themselves to be at high risk due to smoking. We sought to determine whether the risk of lung cancer varies predictably among smokers. METHODS: We used data on 18 172 subjects enrolled in the Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET)-a large, randomized trial of lung cancer prevention-to derive a lung cancer risk prediction model. Model inputs included the subject's age, sex, asbestos exposure history, and smoking history. We assessed the model's calibration by comparing predicted and observed rates of lung cancer across risk deciles and validated it by assessing the extent to which a model estimated on data from five CARET study sites could predict events in the sixth study site. We then applied the model to evaluate the risk of lung cancer among smokers enrolled in a study of lung cancer screening with computed tomography (CT). RESULTS: The model was internally valid and well calibrated. Ten-year lung cancer risk varied greatly among participants in the CT study, from 15% for a 68-year-old man who has smoked two packs per day for 50 years and continues to smoke, to 0.8% for a 51-year-old woman who smoked one pack per day for 28 years before quitting 9 years earlier. Even among the subset of CT study participants who would be eligible for a clinical trial of cancer prevention, risk varied greatly. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of lung cancer varies widely among smokers. Accurate risk prediction may help individuals who are contemplating voluntary screening to balance the potential benefits and risks. Risk prediction may also be useful for researchers designing clinical trials of lung cancer prevention.

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 · 10.1093/jnci/95.6.470

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 642

Metadata

Authors
Bach, P. B., Kattan, M. W., Thornquist, M. D., Kris, M. G., Tate, R. C., Barnett, M. J., Hsieh, L. J., & Begg, C. B.
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2003-03-19
Volume
95
Issue
6
Pages
470-478
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2109896839
Cited by
642
References
3
FWCI
17.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Variations in Lung Cancer Risk Among Smokers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/95.6.470
The paper
Bach, P. B., Kattan, M. W., Thornquist, M. D., Kris, M. G., Tate, R. C., Barnett, M. J., Hsieh, L. J., & Begg, C. B. (2003). Variations in Lung Cancer Risk Among Smokers. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/95.6.470

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.