BACKGROUND Lung cancer risks at which individuals should be screened with computed tomography (CT) for lung cancer are undecided. This study's objectives are to identify a risk threshold for selecting individuals for screening, to compare its efficiency with the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for identifying screenees, and to determine whether never-smokers should be screened. Lung cancer risks are compared between smokers aged 55-64 and ≥ 65-80 y. METHODS AND FINDINGS Applying the PLCO(m2012) model, a model based on 6-y lung cancer incidence, we identified the risk threshold above which National Lung Screening Trial (NLST, n = 53,452) CT arm lung cancer mortality rates were consistently lower than rates in the chest X-ray (CXR) arm. We evaluated the USPSTF and PLCO(m2012) risk criteria in intervention arm (CXR) smokers (n = 37,327) of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO). The numbers of smokers selected for screening, and the sensitivities, specificities, and positive predictive values (PPVs) for identifying lung cancers were assessed. A modified model (PLCOall2014) evaluated risks in never-smokers. At PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151, the 65th percentile of risk, the NLST CT arm mortality rates are consistently below the CXR arm's rates. The number needed to screen to prevent one lung cancer death in the 65th to 100th percentile risk group is 255 (95% CI 143 to 1,184), and in the 30th to 15 y, 8.5% had PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151. None of 65,711 PLCO never-smokers had PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151. Risks and lung cancers were significantly greater in PLCO smokers aged ≥ 65-80 y than in those aged 55-64 y. This study omitted cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSIONS The USPSTF criteria for CT screening include some low-risk individuals and exclude some high-risk individuals. Use of the PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151 criterion can improve screening efficiency. Currently, never-smokers should not be screened. Smokers aged ≥ 65-80 y are a high-risk group who may benefit from screening. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

/pdf/evaluation-of-the-lung-cancer-risks-at-which-to-screen-ever-1xog9nhaqz.pdf

Evaluation of the Lung Cancer Risks at Which to Screen Ever- and Never-Smokers: Screening Rules Applied to the PLCO and NLST Cohorts

The menace of misinformation online has gained considerable media attention and plausible solutions for combatting misinformation have often been less than satisfactory. In an environment of ubiqui...

Recognise misinformation and verify before sharing: a reasoned action and information literacy perspective

The ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee is responsible for creating and updating a continuous and dynamic environmental scan for the association that encompasses trends in academic librarianship, higher education, and the broader environment, e.g., economic, demographic, political; providing an annual environmental scan “snapshot.” The committee also is responsible for identifying the ACRL “top ten trends” for release every two years. In order to identify the trends, the com

2012 top ten trends in academic libraries A review of the trends and issues affecting academic libraries in higher education

/pdf/academic-library-impact-improving-practice-and-essential-3t0vjbux26.pdf

Academic Library Impact: Improving Practice and Essential Areas to Research

Although citation counts are often used to evaluate the research impact of academic publications, they are problematic for books that aim for educational or cultural impact. To fill this gap, this article assesses whether a number of simple metrics derived from Amazon.com reviews of academic books could provide evidence of their impact. Based on a set of 2,739 academic monographs from 2008 and a set of 1,305 best-selling books in 15 Amazon.com academic subject categories, the existence of significant but low or moderate correlations between citations and numbers of reviews, combined with other evidence, suggests that online book reviews tend to reflect the wider popularity of a book rather than its academic impact, although there are substantial disciplinary differences. Metrics based on online reviews are therefore recommended for the evaluation of books that aim at a wide audience inside or outside academia when it is important to capture the broader impacts of educational or cultural activities and when they cannot be manipulated in advance of the evaluation.

/pdf/can-amazon-com-reviews-help-to-assess-the-wider-impacts-of-37luhgkah3.pdf

Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books

They focus on documenting the library’s contribution to institutional effectiveness and student learning outcomes 3. The standards provide suggested points of comparison for peer and longitudinal comparison, and encourage the development of other measures. Some measures of quality and quantity are used in this document, as well as questions to provide guidance for assessing each element of library operations and the provision of library services. 4.

/pdf/standards-for-libraries-in-higher-education-x5bmm2a1vi.pdf

Mary Jane Petrowski

Papers

Standards for Libraries in Higher Education