ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2015
Invited Commentary: Clinical Utility of Prediction Models for Rare Outcomes--The Example of Pancreatic Cancer.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk Prediction Models for Head and Neck Cancer in the US Population From the INHANCE Consortium.American journal of epidemiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Translating relative risk estimates into absolute risks is important in evaluating the potential clinical and public health relevance of etiologic discoveries. Predicting high absolute risk is challenging, particularly for rare endpoints such as pancreatic cancer. Recent efforts to develop risk prediction models for pancreatic cancer have found moderate risk levels for very small parts of the population. A new approach in which clinical symptoms and medication use are evaluated in addition to information on risk factors is presented by Risch et al. in this issue of the Journal (Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182(1):26-34). The authors estimated absolute risks based on the relative risks obtained from their case-control study. Their absolute risk estimates were higher than those from previous approaches but remained restricted to a very small proportion of the general population. In the present commentary, we address issues of absolute risk stratification (particularly for rare diseases), specific analytic methods, and how actionable information will differ based on the disease and possible intervention. We suggest that moving from cancer-specific models to broader models used to predict risk for multiple outcomes can make risk prediction for rare diseases more effective. When considering translational goals, it is important to estimate absolute risk at the early stages of etiologic research. The results can be sobering but allow focusing on the most promising goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.