However, the expected degree of net benefit or level of certainty about the evidence is rarely uniform, even for selected populations. In lung cancer screening, even among persons who are deemed to be “high-risk” and were eligible for the NLST (National Lung Screening Trial), there is a predictable and broad spectrum of both anticipated benefit and anticipated benefit–harm tradeoff (what the Task Force would call “net benefit”) (4). Across quintiles of lung cancer risk within the NLST, the number of participants who needed to be screened to prevent a lung cancer death, which is a measure of the probability of benefit for a person, varied by 33-fold from the lowest- to highest-risk group (5276 vs. 161 needed to screen). The number of false-positive results per prevented lung cancer death, which is a measure of the expected benefit–harm tradeoff for a person, varied 25-fold from 1648 false-positive results per prevented death to only 65 (5). Perhaps the high-risk group should have qualified for an “A”; perhaps the latter should get only a “C,” a service that should be only selectively offered.