The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Lung Cancer Risk Prediction: Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Models and Validation
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Identification of individuals at high risk for lung cancer should be of value to individuals, patients, clinicians, and researchers. Existing prediction models have only modest capabilities to classify persons at risk accurately. METHODS: Prospective data from 70 962 control subjects in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) were used in models for the general population (model 1) and for a subcohort of ever-smokers (N = 38 254) (model 2). Both models included age, socioeconomic status (education), body mass index, family history of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, recent chest x-ray, smoking status (never, former, or current), pack-years smoked, and smoking duration. Model 2 also included smoking quit-time (time in years since ever-smokers permanently quit smoking). External validation was performed with 44 223 PLCO intervention arm participants who completed a supplemental questionnaire and were subsequently followed. Known available risk factors were included in logistic regression models. Bootstrap optimism-corrected estimates of predictive performance were calculated (internal validation). Nonlinear relationships for age, pack-years smoked, smoking duration, and quit-time were modeled using restricted cubic splines. All reported P values are two-sided. RESULTS: During follow-up (median 9.2 years) of the control arm subjects, 1040 lung cancers occurred. During follow-up of the external validation sample (median 3.0 years), 213 lung cancers occurred. For models 1 and 2, bootstrap optimism-corrected receiver operator characteristic area under the curves were 0.857 and 0.805, and calibration slopes (model-predicted probabilities vs observed probabilities) were 0.987 and 0.979, respectively. In the external validation sample, models 1 and 2 had area under the curves of 0.841 and 0.784, respectively. These models had high discrimination in women, men, whites, and nonwhites. CONCLUSION: The PLCO lung cancer risk models demonstrate high discrimination and calibration.
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
Cites
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000) · doi:10.1002/0471722146 · Cited by 20,302
Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Xu, J., & Ward, E. (2010) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20073 · Cited by 12,596
A variant associated with nicotine dependence, lung cancer and peripheral arterial disease
Thorgeirsson, T. E., Geller, F., Sulem, P., Rafnar, T., Wiste, A., Magnusson, K. P., Manolescu, A., Thorleifsson, G., Stefansson, H., Ingason, A., et al. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06846 · Cited by 1,523
Hung, R. J., McKay, J. D., Gaborieau, V., Boffetta, P., Hashibe, M., Zaridze, D., Mukeria, A., Szeszenia-Dabrowska, N., Lissowska, J., Rudnai, P., et al. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06885 · Cited by 1,275
Dangers of Using "Optimal" Cutpoints in the Evaluation of Prognostic Factors
Altman, D. G., Lausen, B., Sauerbrei, W., & Schumacher, M. (1994) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/86.11.829 · Cited by 1,143
Cited by
Moons, K. G. M., Altman, D. G., Reitsma, J. B., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Macaskill, P., Steyerberg, E. W., Vickers, A. J., Ransohoff, D. F., & Collins, G. S. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-0698 · Cited by 5,147
Jaklitsch, M. T., Jacobson, F. L., Austin, J. H. M., Field, J. K., Jett, J. R., Keshavjee, S., MacMahon, H., Mulshine, J. L., Munden, R. F., Salgia, R., et al. (2012) · The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.05.060 · Cited by 608
Adams, S. J., Stone, E., Baldwin, D. R., Vliegenthart, R., Lee, P., & Fintelmann, F. J. (2023) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(22)01694-4 · Cited by 467
A Comparative Performance Analysis of Data Resampling Methods on Imbalance Medical Data
Khushi, M., Shaukat, K., Alam, T. M., Hameed, I. A., Uddin, S., Luo, S., Yang, X., & Reyes, M. C. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3102399 · Cited by 335
Scientific Advances in Lung Cancer 2015
Tsao, A. S., Scagliotti, G. V., Bunn, P. A., Carbone, D. P., Warren, G. W., Bai, C., de Koning, H. J., Yousaf-Khan, A. U., McWilliams, A., Tsao, M. S., et al. (2016) · Journal of Thoracic Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2016.03.012 · Cited by 284
Metadata
- Authors
- Tammemagi, C. M., Pinsky, P. F., Caporaso, N. E., Kvale, P. A., Hocking, W. G., Church, T. R., Riley, T. L., Commins, J., Oken, M. M., Berg, C. D., & Prorok, P. C.
- Venue
- JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-05-23
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1058-1068
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2160653301
- Cited by
- 310
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 20.79
- 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: Lung Cancer Risk Prediction: Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Models and Validation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djr173
- The paper
- Tammemagi, C. M., Pinsky, P. F., Caporaso, N. E., Kvale, P. A., Hocking, W. G., Church, T. R., Riley, T. L., Commins, J., Oken, M. M., Berg, C. D., & Prorok, P. C. (2011). Lung Cancer Risk Prediction: Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Models and Validation. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr173
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.