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...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | npj Precision Oncology |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-024-00785-6 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1846112898461466624 |
|---|---|
| author | Hermann Brenner Clara Frick Teresa Seum Megha Bhardwaj |
| author_facet | Hermann Brenner Clara Frick Teresa Seum Megha Bhardwaj |
| author_sort | Hermann Brenner |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-0fbacf68f8aa427eb30c144813c80d0b |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2397-768X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | Nature Portfolio |
| record_format | Article |
| series | npj Precision Oncology |
| spelling | doaj-art-0fbacf68f8aa427eb30c144813c80d0b2024-12-22T12:11:25ZengNature Portfolionpj Precision Oncology2397-768X2024-12-01811310.1038/s41698-024-00785-6Pitfalls in interpreting calibration in comparative evaluations of risk models for precision lung cancer screeningHermann Brenner0Clara Frick1Teresa Seum2Megha Bhardwaj3Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)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.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-024-00785-6 |
| spellingShingle | Hermann Brenner Clara Frick Teresa Seum Megha Bhardwaj Pitfalls in interpreting calibration in comparative evaluations of risk models for precision lung cancer screening npj Precision Oncology |
| title | Pitfalls in interpreting calibration in comparative evaluations of risk models for precision lung cancer screening |
| title_full | Pitfalls in interpreting calibration in comparative evaluations of risk models for precision lung cancer screening |
| title_fullStr | Pitfalls in interpreting calibration in comparative evaluations of risk models for precision lung cancer screening |
| title_full_unstemmed | Pitfalls in interpreting calibration in comparative evaluations of risk models for precision lung cancer screening |
| title_short | Pitfalls in interpreting calibration in comparative evaluations of risk models for precision lung cancer screening |
| title_sort | pitfalls in interpreting calibration in comparative evaluations of risk models for precision lung cancer screening |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-024-00785-6 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hermannbrenner pitfallsininterpretingcalibrationincomparativeevaluationsofriskmodelsforprecisionlungcancerscreening AT clarafrick pitfallsininterpretingcalibrationincomparativeevaluationsofriskmodelsforprecisionlungcancerscreening AT teresaseum pitfallsininterpretingcalibrationincomparativeevaluationsofriskmodelsforprecisionlungcancerscreening AT meghabhardwaj pitfallsininterpretingcalibrationincomparativeevaluationsofriskmodelsforprecisionlungcancerscreening |