Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 436

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical Utility of a Plasma-Based miRNA Signature Classifier Within Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening: A Correlative MILD Trial Study

Open access
Sozzi, Gabriella, Boeri, Mattia, Rossi, Marta, Verri, Carla, Suatoni, Paola, Bravi, Francesca, Roz, Luca, Conte, Davide, Grassi, Michela, Sverzellati, Nicola, Marchiano, Alfonso, Negri, Eva, La Vecchia, Carlo, Pastorino, Ugo·2014·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Recent screening trial results indicate that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality in high-risk patients. However, high false-positive rates, costs, and potential harms highlight the need for complementary biomarkers. The diagnostic performance of a noninvasive plasma microRNA signature classifier (MSC) was retrospectively evaluated in samples prospectively collected from smokers within the randomized Multicenter Italian Lung Detection (MILD) trial. Patients and Methods: Plasma samples from 939 participants, including 69 patients with lung cancer and 870 disease-free individuals (n = 652, LDCT arm; n = 287, observation arm) were analyzed by using a quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction–based assay for MSC. Diagnostic performance of MSC was evaluated in a blinded validation study that used prespecified risk groups. Results: The diagnostic performance of MSC for lung cancer detection was 87% for sensitivity and 81% for specificity across both arms, and 88% and 80%, respectively, in the LDCT arm. For all patients, MSC had a negative predictive value of 99% and 99.86% for detection and death as a result of disease, respectively. LDCT had sensitivity of 79% and specificity of 81% with a false-positive rate of 19.4%. Diagnostic performance of MSC was confirmed by time dependency analysis. Combination of both MSC and LDCT resulted in a five-fold reduction of LDCT false-positive rate to 3.7%. MSC risk groups were significantly associated with survival (χ 1 2 = 49.53; P < .001). Conclusion: This large validation study indicates that MSC has predictive, diagnostic, and prognostic value and could reduce the false-positive rate of LDCT, thus improving the efficacy of lung cancer screening.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2013.50.4357

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 436

Metadata

Authors
Sozzi, G., Boeri, M., Rossi, M., Verri, C., Suatoni, P., Bravi, F., Roz, L., Conte, D., Grassi, M., Sverzellati, N., Marchiano, A., Negri, E., La Vecchia, C., & Pastorino, U.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2014-03-10
Volume
32
Issue
8
Pages
768-773
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2103950317
Cited by
436
References
4
FWCI
14.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Clinical Utility of a Plasma-Based miRNA Signature Classifier Within Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening: A Correlative MILD Trial Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2013.50.4357
The paper
Sozzi, G., Boeri, M., Rossi, M., Verri, C., Suatoni, P., Bravi, F., Roz, L., Conte, D., Grassi, M., Sverzellati, N., Marchiano, A., Negri, E., La Vecchia, C., & Pastorino, U. (2014). Clinical Utility of a Plasma-Based miRNA Signature Classifier Within Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening: A Correlative MILD Trial Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.50.4357

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.