Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36071519›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2022

External validation of models for predicting risk of colorectal cancer using the China Kadoorie Biobank.

Roxanna E Abhari, Blake Thomson, Ling Yang, Iona Millwood, Yu Guo, Xiaoming Yang, Jun Lv, Daniel Avery, Pei Pei, Peng Wen and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

16 authors.

Roxanna E AbhariClinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute Building, Roosevelt Drive, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4520-6534
Blake ThomsonDepartment of Surveillance and Health Equity Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Ling YangClinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute Building, Roosevelt Drive, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Iona MillwoodClinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute Building, Roosevelt Drive, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Yu GuoFuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 102308, China.
Xiaoming YangClinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute Building, Roosevelt Drive, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jun LvDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, 38 Xueyuan Road, Beijing, 100191, China.
Daniel AveryClinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute Building, Roosevelt Drive, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Pei PeiChinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Building C, NCCD, Shilongxi Rd., Mentougou District, Beijing, 102308, China.
Peng WenMaiji CDC, No. 29 Shangbu Road, Maiji, Tianshui, 741020, Gansu, China.
Canqing YuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, 38 Xueyuan Road, Beijing, 100191, China.
Yiping ChenClinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute Building, Roosevelt Drive, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Junshi ChenNational Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment, 37 Guangqu Road, Beijing, 100021, China.
Liming LiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, 38 Xueyuan Road, Beijing, 100191, China.
Zhengming ChenClinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute Building, Roosevelt Drive, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Christiana KartsonakiClinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute Building, Roosevelt Drive, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. christiana.kartsonaki@dph.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 29186Medical Research Council MC_U137686851Medical Research Council MC_UU_00017/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12026/2Wellcome Trust 212946/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

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

Biological Specimen BanksColorectal NeoplasmsChinaHumansMaleProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentCancer epidemiologyColorectal cancerExternal validationRisk prediction models

Identifiers

PMID36071519
PMCPMC9454206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.