Québec Releases the Largest Annotated Lung Cancer Screening Dataset — But You Can't Download It

1,678 annotated LDCT scans with voxel-level nodule segmentations, accessible only through a model-to-data sandbox. The biggest public lung screening benchmark just arrived with a privacy-first twist.

Imagine you're a food critic, but you can't take the dish home. You walk into the restaurant, eat at the table, write your review — but the recipe and the plate never leave the kitchen. That's the core mechanism of LUCQUE: the largest annotated real-world lung cancer screening dataset publicly accessible for AI evaluation, hosted on a platform (PARADIM) where your code goes to the data instead of the data coming to you. The committed claim: LUCQUE is the largest accessible, comprehensively annotated real-world low-dose CT lung cancer screening dataset, and it fills a gap that has been quietly crippling the field — fragmented public datasets with inconsistent annotations and missing clinical metadata have made it nearly impossible to independently compare AI tools for lung cancer screening on a level playing field. The 1,678 baseline LDCT studies come with voxel-level expert segmentations of 1,776 pulmonary nodules and 60 cysts, plus Lung-RADS classifications and participant demographics. This isn't a methods paper. It's infrastructure. Where does LUCQUE sit on the ladder? The existing public benchmarks are NLST (which is large but not annotated at voxel level for nodule segmentation in a unified, accessible way), LIDC-IDRI (1,018 scans, older, smaller, but with multi-reader annotations), and a scattering of smaller sets. LUCQUE's 1,678 studies with unified Lung-RADS annotations and voxel-level segmentations represent a genuine step up in scale and annotation consistency for the screening-specific use case. But it's important to be honest: LIDC-IDRI has multi-reader annotations (multiple radiologists per nodule), which LUCQUE's abstract doesn't claim. And NLST's raw size dwarfs LUCQUE. The real edge is the combination of annotation quality, clinical metadata, Lung-RADS, and accessibility — not raw scan count alone. Architecturally, this is a data-infrastructure contribution, not an algorithmic one. The key design choice is the model-to-data paradigm via PARADIM: user code is shipped to the platform and executed on-premise, so the DICOM data never leaves the host. This is the privacy-preserving federated-evaluation family — conceptually adjacent to what OpenFL, Flower, or NVIDIA FLARE do for federated learning, but applied here to benchmarking rather than training. The compute property the method leans on is centralized hosting with sandboxed execution, which trades download convenience for regulatory compliance and long-term data stewardship. Integrity is a mixed bag. On the plus side: the dataset is derived from a real-world screening program, not a simulation or synthetic pipeline. Expert-derived segmentations with Lung-RADS grading are a strong annotation standard. On the minus side: there's no mention of inter-reader agreement metrics, no independent external audit of the annotations, and the model-to-data access model means outside researchers can't fully inspect the data for edge-case biases or annotation errors the way they can with a downloadable dataset. The privacy gain is real, but it introduces a new kind of opacity. Code availability and platform access details are referenced but specifics on reproducibility guarantees (versioning, deterministic execution environments) aren't detailed in the abstract. The milestone question for lung screening AI benchmarks is clear: the field needs a single, canonical, multi-thousand-scan annotated benchmark with unified clinical metadata that AI tools are routinely evaluated against — the ImageNet moment for lung screening. LUCQUE at 1,678 scans is the best candidate today, but the abstract notes 'currently comprises,' implying growth. The threshold that changes the game is roughly 5,000+ annotated scans with longitudinal follow-up (not just baseline), which would enable meaningful evaluation of screening-interval prediction and cancer-outcome models, not just nodule detection. The obvious experiment not run: benchmarking existing AI tools (e.g., commercially deployed CAD systems, published detection models) on LUCQUE and reporting comparative results. The authors built the track but didn't race the cars. The honest read is (c) — they're saving it, or inviting the community to do it. A dataset paper's job is the dataset; the benchmarking paper is the natural sequel. But without at least one baseline model run, we can't yet verify that the dataset is practically usable for the comparisons it promises.