ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2018
Comparison of Performance Between a Short Categorized Lifestyle Exposure-based Colon Cancer Risk Prediction Tool and a Model Using Continuous Measures.
Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of a breast cancer risk prediction model based on the key risk factors: family history, mammographic density and polygenic risk.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Simplified Breast Risk Tool Integrating Questionnaire Risk Factors, Mammographic Density, and Polygenic Risk Score: Development and Validation.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021Article
- Adherence of Internet-Based Cancer Risk Assessment Tools to Best Practices in Risk Communication: Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Commentary: 20 years online with "Your Disease Risk".Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2021Article
- Risk Ladder, Table, or Bulleted List? Identifying Formats That Effectively Communicate Personalized Risk and Risk Reduction Information for Multiple Diseases.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Article
- Translating Cancer Risk Prediction Models into Personalized Cancer Risk Assessment Tools: Stumbling Blocks and Strategies for Success.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Risk prediction models that estimate an individual's risk of developing colon cancer could be used for a variety of clinical and public health interventions, including offering high-risk individuals enhanced screening or lifestyle interventions. However, if risk prediction models are to be translated into actual clinical and public health practice, they must not only be valid and reliable, but also be easy to use. One way of accomplishing this might be to simplify the information that users of risk prediction tools have to enter, but it is critical to ensure no resulting detrimental effects on model performance. We compared the performance of a simplified, largely categorized exposure-based colon cancer risk model against a more complex, largely continuous exposure-based risk model using two prospective cohorts. Using data from the Nurses' Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study we included 816 incident colon cancer cases in women and 412 in men. The discrimination of models was not significantly different comparing a categorized risk prediction model with a continuous prediction model in women (c-statistic 0.600 vs. 0.609,
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.