ArticleBMJ open gastroenterology2021
Use of ColonFlag score for prioritisation of endoscopy in colorectal cancer.
Article in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Prediction Models Incorporating Blood Test Trend for Cancer Detection: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Critical Appraisal.JMIR cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of ColonFlag as a Complete Blood Count-Based Machine Learning Algorithm for Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Challenges in evaluating the accuracy of AI-containing digital triage systems: A systematic review.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- The use of blood test trends in cancer detection: a scoping review.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2026Review
- Utilizing an Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Model to Predict Colorectal Cancer Risk in American Samoa: A Pilot Study.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
- Mapping and Summarizing the Research on AI Systems for Automating Medical History Taking and Triage: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Diagnostic application of the ColonFlag AI tool in combination with faecal immunochemical test in patients on an urgent lower gastrointestinal cancer pathway.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2024Article
- The performance of FIT-based and other risk prediction models for colorectal neoplasia in symptomatic patients: a systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Review
- Article
- Review
- Stacked random forest model for colorectal cancer detection using complete blood counts.Digital healthArticle
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveColorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer in UK. Symptomatic patients are referred via an urgent pathway and although most are investigated with colonoscopy <4% are diagnosed with cancer. There is therefore a need for a suitable triage tool to prioritise investigations. This study retrospectively examined performance of various triage tools in patients awaiting investigation on the urgent lower gastrointestinal cancer pathway
designAll patients over 40 years of age on the urgent pathway awaiting investigation for suspected CRC on 1 May were included. After 6 months, outcomes were evaluated and the performance of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT), faecal haemoglobin concentration, age and sex test (FAST) and the artificial intelligence algorithm ColonFlag were examined.
results532 completed investigations and received a diagnosis; 15 had CRC. 388 had a valid FIT result, of whom 11 had CRC; FAST Score ≥4.5 had sensitivity of 72.7%, specificity of 80.6% and would have failed to detect three tumours. Faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) at cut-off of 10 µg/g and ColonFlag had equal sensitivity of 81.82%, ColonFlag had greater specificity 73.47%, compared with 64.99%. Both tests would have failed to detect two tumours but not in the same patients; when used in combination, sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 49.4%. When ColonFlag was applied to the cohort of 532, an additional four tumours would have been detected in patients without a valid FIT.
conclusionThis study showed ColonFlag to have equal sensitivity and greater specificity than f-Hb at a cut-off of 10 µg/g as a triage tool for CRC.
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.