ArticleClinical and experimental gastroenterology2018
Validation of a risk prediction model for Barrett's esophagus in an Australian population.
Article in Clinical and experimental gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effective identification of Barrett's esophagus in the community: A first step towards screening.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
- Risk Prediction Models for Barrett's Esophagus Discriminate Well and Are Generalizable in an External Validation Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2020Article
- Development and validation of a risk prediction model to diagnose Barrett's oesophagus (MARK-BE): a case-control machine learning approach.The Lancet. Digital health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEsophageal adenocarcinoma is a disease that has a high mortality rate, the only known precursor being Barrett's esophagus (BE). While screening for BE is not cost-effective at the population level, targeted screening might be beneficial. We have developed a risk prediction model to identify people with BE, and here we present the external validation of this model. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cohort study was undertaken to validate a risk prediction model for BE. Individuals with endoscopy and histopathology proven BE completed a questionnaire containing variables previously identified as risk factors for this condition. Their responses were combined with data from a population sample for analysis. Risk scores were derived for each participant. Overall performance of the risk prediction model in terms of calibration and discrimination was assessed.
resultsScores from 95 individuals with BE and 636 individuals from the general population were analyzed. The Brier score was 0.118, suggesting reasonable overall performance. The area under the receiver operating characteristic was 0.83 (95% CI 0.78-0.87). The Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic was
conclusionThis study has validated a risk prediction model for BE that has a higher sensitivity than previous models.
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.