ArticleBMC medicine2022
External validation of models for predicting risk of colorectal cancer using the China Kadoorie Biobank.
Article in BMC medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of models to predict incident chronic liver disease: a systematic review and external validation in Chinese adults.BMC medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Development and external validation of a machine-learning risk model for colorectal cancer triage in Sweden's fast-track pathway.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- AI-driven integration of genomic and exposome data for cancer risk: the combined risk score (CRS).Human genomics · 2026Review
- Psychiatric disorders associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer in the UK biobank cohort.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- AI-driven pre-screening for colorectal cancer using complete blood counts: toward broader population impact.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Population-based colorectal cancer risk prediction using a SHAP-enhanced LightGBM model.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- External validation of the colorectal cancer risk score LiFeCRC using food frequency questions in the HUNT study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn China, colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality have been steadily increasing over the last decades. Risk models to predict incident CRC have been developed in various populations, but they have not been systematically externally validated in a Chinese population. This study aimed to assess the performance of risk scores in predicting CRC using the China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB), one of the largest and geographically diverse prospective cohort studies in China.
methodsNine models were externally validated in 512,415 participants in CKB and included 2976 cases of CRC. Model discrimination was assessed, overall and by sex, age, site, and geographic location, using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Model discrimination of these nine models was compared to a model using age alone. Calibration was assessed for five models, and they were re-calibrated in CKB.
resultsThe three models with the highest discrimination (Ma (Cox model) AUC 0.70 [95% CI 0.69-0.71]; Aleksandrova 0.70 [0.69-0.71]; Hong 0.69 [0.67-0.71]) included the variables age, smoking, and alcohol. These models performed significantly better than using a model based on age alone (AUC of 0.65 [95% CI 0.64-0.66]). Model discrimination was generally higher in younger participants, males, urban environments, and for colon cancer. The two models (Guo and Chen) developed in Chinese populations did not perform better than the others. Among the 10% of participants with the highest risk, the three best performing models identified 24-26% of participants that went on to develop CRC.
conclusionsSeveral risk models based on easily obtainable demographic and modifiable lifestyle factor have good discrimination in a Chinese population. The three best performing models have a higher discrimination than using a model based on age alone.
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.