Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35373263›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2022

Cancer Modeling as Learning Experience.

Ruth Etzioni, Jane Lange

Abstract readEditorialComment
PubMed Publisher
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, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ruth EtzioniBiostatistics Program, Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.ORCID 0000-0002-9164-6370
Jane LangeCEDAR at the Knight Cancer Institute, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.

Funding

Translational Bioimaging Core Shared ResourceP30CA015704 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Eric Collisson · 1985 to 2026
$296.4M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer modeling has become an accepted method for generating evidence about comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of candidate cancer control policies across the continuum of care. Models of early detection policies require inputs concerning disease natural history and screening test performance, which are often subject to considerable uncertainty. Model validation against an external data source can increase confidence in the reliability of assumed or calibrated inputs. When a model fails to validate, this presents an opportunity to revise these inputs, thereby learning new information about disease natural history or diagnostic performance that could both enhance the model results and inform real-world practices. We discuss the conditions necessary for validly drawing conclusions about specific inputs such as diagnostic performance from model validation studies. Doing so requires being able to faithfully replicate the validation study in terms of its design and implementation and being alert to the problem of non-identifiability, which could lead to explanations for failure to validate other than those identified. See related article by Rutter et al., p. 775.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningNeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.