Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32277002›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2020

Evaluating Discrimination of a Lung Cancer Risk Prediction Model Using Partial Risk-Score in a Two-Phase Study.

Parichoy Pal Choudhury, Anil K Chaturvedi, Nilanjan Chatterjee

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Parichoy Pal ChoudhuryDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland.
Anil K ChaturvediDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland.
Nilanjan ChatterjeeDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. nilanjan@jhu.edu.
National Cancer Institute · USJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndependent validation of risk prediction models in prospective cohorts is required for risk-stratified cancer prevention. Such studies often have a two-phase design, where information on expensive biomarkers are ascertained in a nested substudy of the original cohort.

methodsWe propose a simple approach for evaluating model discrimination that accounts for incomplete follow-up and gains efficiency by using data from all individuals in the cohort irrespective of whether they were sampled in the substudy. For evaluating the AUC, we estimated probabilities of risk-scores for cases being larger than those in controls conditional on partial risk-scores, computed using partial covariate information. The proposed method was compared with an inverse probability weighted (IPW) approach that used information only from the subjects in the substudy. We evaluated age-stratified AUC of a model including questionnaire-based risk factors and inflammation biomarkers to predict 10-year risk of lung cancer using data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (1993-2009) trial (30,297 ever-smokers, 1,253 patients with lung cancer).

resultsFor estimating age-stratified AUC of the combined lung cancer risk model, the proposed method was 3.8 to 5.3 times more efficient compared with the IPW approach across the different age groups. Extensive simulation studies also demonstrated substantial efficiency gain compared with the IPW approach.

conclusionsIncorporating information from all individuals in a two-phase cohort study can substantially improve precision of discrimination measures of lung cancer risk models. IMPACT: Novel, simple, and practically useful methods are proposed for evaluating risk models, a critical step toward risk-stratified cancer prevention.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID32277002
PMCPMC11807412
OpenAlexW3015978643

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.