Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32133440›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Digital health2020

Development and validation of a risk prediction model to diagnose Barrett's oesophagus (MARK-BE): a case-control machine learning approach.

Avi Rosenfeld, David G Graham, Sarah Jevons, Jose Ariza, Daryl Hagan, Ash Wilson, Samuel J Lovat, BEST2 study group, Sarmed S Sami, Omer F Ahmad and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Digital health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Fivefold Cross-Validation Approach in Evaluating the Robustness of Machine Learning Models for Prediction of Esophageal Cancer.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. New Techniques to Screen for Barrett Esophagus.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Risk Prediction of Barrett's Esophagus in a Taiwanese Health Examination Center Based on Regression Models.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  18. Screening for Barrett's Oesophagus: Are We Ready for it?Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Avi RosenfeldDepartment of Industrial Engineering Jerusalem College of Technology (JCT), Jerusalem, Israel.
David G GrahamGENIE GastroENterological IntervEntion Group, Department for Targeted Intervention, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
Sarah JevonsGENIE GastroENterological IntervEntion Group, Department for Targeted Intervention, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
Jose ArizaGENIE GastroENterological IntervEntion Group, Department for Targeted Intervention, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
Daryl HaganGENIE GastroENterological IntervEntion Group, Department for Targeted Intervention, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
Ash WilsonGENIE GastroENterological IntervEntion Group, Department for Targeted Intervention, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
Samuel J LovatGENIE GastroENterological IntervEntion Group, Department for Targeted Intervention, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
BEST2 study group
Sarmed S SamiGENIE GastroENterological IntervEntion Group, Department for Targeted Intervention, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
Omer F AhmadGENIE GastroENterological IntervEntion Group, Department for Targeted Intervention, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
Marco NovelliDept of Pathology, University College London Hospital (UCLH), London, United Kingdom.
Manuel Rodriguez JustoDept of Pathology, University College London Hospital (UCLH), London, United Kingdom.
Alison WinstanleyDept of Pathology, University College London Hospital (UCLH), London, United Kingdom.
Eliyahu M HeifetzDepartment of Health Informatics, Jerusalem College of Technology (JCT), Jerusalem, Israel.
Mordehy Ben-ZechariaDepartment of Health Informatics, Jerusalem College of Technology (JCT), Jerusalem, Israel.
Uria NoimanDepartment of Health Informatics, Jerusalem College of Technology (JCT), Jerusalem, Israel.
Rebecca C FitzgeraldMRC Cancer Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Peter SasieniCancer Prevention Trials Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Laurence B LovatGENIE GastroENterological IntervEntion Group, Department for Targeted Intervention, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
University College London · GBUniversity College Hospital · GBJerusalem College of Technology · ILKing's College London · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 12088Cancer Research UK 16893Cancer Research UK 25356Cancer Research UK 27047Cancer Research UK A12088Department of HealthWellcome TrustWellcome Trust 203145Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Screening for Barrett's Oesophagus (BE) relies on endoscopy which is invasive and has a low yield. This study aimed to develop and externally validate a simple symptom and risk-factor questionnaire to screen for patients with BE. Methods: Questionnaires from 1299 patients in the BEST2 case-controlled study were analysed: 880 had BE including 40 with invasive oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) and 419 were controls. This was randomly split into a training cohort of 776 patients and an internal validation cohort of 523 patients. External validation included 398 patients from the BOOST case-controlled study: 198 with BE (23 with OAC) and 200 controls. Identification of independently important diagnostic features was undertaken using machine learning techniques information gain (IG) and correlation based feature selection (CFS). Multiple classification tools were assessed to create a multi-variable risk prediction model. Internal validation was followed by external validation in the independent dataset. Findings: The BEST2 study included 40 features. Of these, 24 added IG but following CFS, only 8 demonstrated independent diagnostic value including age, gender, smoking, waist circumference, frequency of stomach pain, duration of heartburn and acid taste and taking of acid suppression medicines. Logistic regression offered the highest prediction quality with AUC (area under the receiver operator curve) of 0.87. In the internal validation set, AUC was 0.86. In the BOOST external validation set, AUC was 0.81. Interpretation: The diagnostic model offers valid predictions of diagnosis of BE in patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux, assisting in identifying who should go forward to invasive testing. Overweight men who have been taking stomach medicines for a long time may merit particular consideration for further testing. The risk prediction tool is quick and simple to administer but will need further calibration and validation in a prospective study in primary care. Funding: Charles Wolfson Trust and Guts UK.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAgedBarrett EsophagusCase-Control StudiesFemaleForecastingHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID32133440
PMCPMC7056359
OpenAlexW2993298543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.