Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33733200›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2020

Population-Based Screening for Endometrial Cancer: Human vs. Machine Intelligence.

Gregory R Hart, Vanessa Yan, Gloria S Huang, Ying Liang, Bradley J Nartowt, Wazir Muhammad, Jun Deng

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05651282 (Uterine Cancer Risk Reducing Strategies in Postmenopausal Women), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05651282 phase4completednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Uterine Cancer Risk Reducing Strategies in Postmenopausal Women

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of British ColumbiaRan2023 to 2025Enrolled96ConditionsEndometrium CancerArmsProvera
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors.

Gregory R HartDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, U.S.A.
Vanessa YanDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, U.S.A.
Gloria S HuangDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale University, New Haven, CT, U.S.A.
Ying LiangDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, U.S.A.
Bradley J NartowtDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, U.S.A.
Wazir MuhammadDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, U.S.A.
Jun DengDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, U.S.A.

Funding

Tracking Organ Doses for Patient Safety in Radiation TherapyR01EB022589 · NIBIB · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI DENG, JUN · 2016 to 2018
$1.1M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB022589
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Incidence and mortality rates of endometrial cancer are increasing, leading to increased interest in endometrial cancer risk prediction and stratification to help in screening and prevention. Previous risk models have had moderate success with the area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.68 to 0.77. Here we demonstrate a population-based machine learning model for endometrial cancer screening that achieves a testing AUC of 0.96. We train seven machine learning algorithms based solely on personal health data, without any genomic, imaging, biomarkers, or invasive procedures. The data come from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO). We further compare our machine learning model with 15 gynecologic oncologists and primary care physicians in the stratification of endometrial cancer risk for 100 women. We find a random forest model that achieves a testing AUC of 0.96 and a neural network model that achieves a testing AUC of 0.91. We test both models in risk stratification against 15 practicing physicians. Our random forest model is 2.5 times better at identifying above-average risk women with a 2-fold reduction in the false positive rate. Our neural network model is 2 times better at identifying above-average risk women with a 3-fold reduction in the false positive rate. Our machine learning models provide a non-invasive and cost-effective way to identify high-risk sub-populations who may benefit from early screening of endometrial cancer, prior to disease onset. Through statistical biopsy of personal health data, we have identified a new and effective approach for early cancer detection and prevention for individual patients.

Indexed as

cancer screeningearly detectionendometrial cancermachine learningstatistical biopsy

Identifiers

PMID33733200
PMCPMC7861326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.