The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Baseline Characteristics of Participants in the Randomized National Lung Screening Trial
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a randomized study conducted at 33 US sites, is comparing lung cancer mortality among persons screened with reduced dose helical computerized tomography and among persons screened with chest radiograph. In this article, we present characteristics of the study population. METHODS: Eligible participants were aged 55-74 years and were current or former smokers with a cigarette smoking history of at least 30 pack-years. Randomization was stratified by site, sex, and age. To assess representativeness of the study population, demographic characteristics of individuals from the general population who met NLST age and smoking history inclusion criteria were obtained from the Tobacco Use Supplement of the US Census Bureau Current Population Surveys. RESULTS: The NLST enrolled 53 456 persons, with 26 733 randomly assigned to chest radiograph screening and 26 723 to computerized tomography screening. Characteristics of the participants were as follows: 31 533 (59%) were men, 39 234 (73%) were younger than 65 years, 25 779 (48%) were current smokers, and 16 839 (32%) had a college or higher degree. Median cigarette exposure was 48 pack-years. Among Tobacco Use Supplement respondents who met NLST age and smoking history criteria, 59% were men, 65% were younger than 65 years, and 57% were current smokers. Median cigarette exposure among this group was 47 pack-years, and 14% had a college degree or higher. CONCLUSION: The NLST cohort has a distribution of sex and pack-year history that is similar to the component of the general US population that meets the major NLST eligibility criteria; however, NLST participants are younger, better educated, and less likely to be current smokers.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening
The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1102873 · Cited by 11,064
Crocker, J. C., Ricci-Cabello, I., Parker, A., Hirst, J. A., Chant, A., Petit-Zeman, S., Evans, D., & Rees, S. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k4738 · Cited by 624
Chiles, C., Duan, F., Gladish, G. W., Ravenel, J. G., Baginski, S. G., Snyder, B. S., DeMello, S., Desjardins, S. S., Munden, R. F., & For the NLST Study Team (2015) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.15142062 · Cited by 356
Lessmann, N., de Jong, P. A., Celeng, C., Takx, R. A. P., Viergever, M. A., van Ginneken, B., & Išgum, I. (2019) · JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging · doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.10.026 · Cited by 49
Lu, M. T., Onuma, O. K., Massaro, J. M., D’Agostino, R. B., O’Donnell, C. J., & Hoffmann, U. (2016) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.116.023957 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team Writing committee:, Aberle, D. R., Adams, A. M., Berg, C. D., Clapp, J. D., Clingan, K. L., Gareen, I. F., Lynch, D. A., Marcus, P. M., & Pinsky, P. F.
- Venue
- JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-11-22
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 1771-1779
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2156909746
- Cited by
- 322
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Baseline Characteristics of Participants in the Randomized National Lung Screening Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djq434
- The paper
- The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team Writing committee:, Aberle, D. R., Adams, A. M., Berg, C. D., Clapp, J. D., Clingan, K. L., Gareen, I. F., Lynch, D. A., Marcus, P. M., & Pinsky, P. F. (2010). Baseline Characteristics of Participants in the Randomized National Lung Screening Trial. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq434
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.