Pitfalls in interpreting calibration in comparative evaluations of risk models for precision lung cancer screening

Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography reduces lung cancer mortality, but reliable risk-based selection of participants is crucial to maximize benefits and minimize harms. Multiple risk models have been developed for this purpose, and their discrimination and calibration performance i...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:NPJ precision oncology 2024-12, Vol.8 (1), p.281-3, Article 281
Main Authors: Brenner, Hermann, Frick, Clara, Seum, Teresa, Bhardwaj, Megha
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
692/308
692/4028
692/499
Cancer Research
Comment
Gene Therapy
Human Genetics
Internal Medicine
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Oncology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography reduces lung cancer mortality, but reliable risk-based selection of participants is crucial to maximize benefits and minimize harms. Multiple risk models have been developed for this purpose, and their discrimination and calibration performance is commonly evaluated based on large-scale cohort studies. Using a recent comparative evaluation of 10 risk models as an example, we illustrate the merits, limitations and pitfalls of such evaluations.
ISSN:2397-768X
2397-768X
DOI:10.1038/s41698-024-00785-6