ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2020
Risk Prediction Models for Barrett's Esophagus Discriminate Well and Are Generalizable in an External Validation Study.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Construction of the Interaction Network of Hub Genes in the Progression of Barrett's Esophagus to Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.Journal of inflammation research · 2023Article
- Development of EndoScreen Chip, a Microfluidic Pre-Endoscopy Triage Test for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.Cancers · 2021Article
- Global burden and epidemiology of Barrett oesophagus and oesophageal cancer.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2021Review
- Epidemiology of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: Implications for Screening and Surveillance.Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBarrett's esophagus is the precursor to the highly lethal esophageal adenocarcinoma. Risk prediction models have been developed to assist in its detection, potentially improving early identification and treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Six models have been developed.
aimsTo externally validate three models (Rubenstein, Thrift, and Baldwin-Hunter models) and compare them to a fourth risk prediction model (Ireland model) for Barrett's esophagus.
methodsData from 120 Barrett's cases and 235 population controls were available to externally validate the three models. Discriminatory ability of these models was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Calibration was assessed with the calibration slope, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and Lowess smoother calibration plot. Following external validation, diagnostic accuracy of the three models was compared to that of the Ireland model.
resultsOn external validation, the Rubenstein model had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 and was well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, p = 0.67). Likewise, the Thrift and Baldwin-Hunter models had similar discrimination (0.71 and 0.70, respectively) and were also well calibrated (p = 0.69 and p = 0.28). Our previous external validation of the Ireland model provided an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83 and was well calibrated (p = 0.14). The Ireland model demonstrated a statistically significantly greater area under the receiver operating characteristic curve than the Rubenstein (p = 0.02), Thrift (p = 0.001), and Baldwin-Hunter (p = 0.002) models.
conclusionWe externally validated the Rubenstein, Thrift, and Baldwin-Hunter risk prediction models and compared them to the Ireland model. The Ireland model demonstrated improved accuracy, albeit with slightly poorer calibration.
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.