ArticleBMC medicine2023
Development, validation, and evaluation of a risk assessment tool for personalized screening of gastric cancer in Chinese populations.
Article in BMC medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plasma proteomic signatures improve risk stratification and personalized screening for gastric cancer.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026Article
- Protocol for identifying cell-type-specific genes associated with disease risk using single-cell eQTL data.STAR protocols · 2026Article
- A prioritization framework for large-scale cancer screening under resource constraints: three 'not all' principles.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Point-of-Care CagA Antibody Positivity and Its Association with Precancerous Gastric Changes.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026Article
- Early detection of gastric cancer via multiplex blood assay targeting CfDNA methylation signatures.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026Article
- AI-based large-scale screening of gastric cancer from noncontrast CT imaging.Nature medicine · 2025Observational
- Single-cell eQTL mapping reveals cell-type-specific genes associated with the risk of gastric cancer.Cell genomics · 2025Article
- Huashi Jiedu Decoction Enhances 5-Fluorouracil Efficacy in Gastric Cancer via miRNA-21-3p/p53 Pathway.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Article
- Global, regional, and national burden of early-onset gastric cancer.Cancer biology & medicine · 2024Article
- Hotspots and trends of risk factors in gastric cancer: A visualization and bibliometric analysis.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- Development of a gastric cancer risk calculator for questionnaire-based surveillance of Iranian dyspeptic patients.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Comparing Participation and Interim Effectiveness of Endoscopy and Biomarker-Based Screening for Gastric Cancer: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of Cancer · 2024Article
- Risk Prediction Models for Gastric Cancer: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Clinicopathological characteristics of gastric cancer patients with dermatomyositis and analysis of perioperative management: a case series study.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEffective risk prediction models are lacking for personalized endoscopic screening of gastric cancer (GC). We aimed to develop, validate, and evaluate a questionnaire-based GC risk assessment tool for risk prediction and stratification in the Chinese population.
methodsIn this three-stage multicenter study, we first selected eligible variables by Cox regression models and constructed a GC risk score (GCRS) based on regression coefficients in 416,343 subjects (aged 40-75 years) from the China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB, development cohort). In the same age range, we validated the GCRS effectiveness in 13,982 subjects from another independent Changzhou cohort (validation cohort) as well as in 5348 subjects from an endoscopy screening program in Yangzhou. Finally, we categorized participants into low (bottom 20%), intermediate (20-80%), and high risk (top 20%) groups by the GCRS distribution in the development cohort.
resultsThe GCRS using 11 questionnaire-based variables demonstrated a Harrell's C-index of 0.754 (95% CI, 0.745-0.762) and 0.736 (95% CI, 0.710-0.761) in the two cohorts, respectively. In the validation cohort, the 10-year risk was 0.34%, 1.05%, and 4.32% for individuals with a low (≤ 13.6), intermediate (13.7~30.6), and high (≥ 30.7) GCRS, respectively. In the endoscopic screening program, the detection rate of GC varied from 0.00% in low-GCRS individuals, 0.27% with intermediate GCRS, to 2.59% with high GCRS. A proportion of 81.6% of all GC cases was identified from the high-GCRS group, which represented 28.9% of all the screened participants.
conclusionsThe GCRS can be an effective risk assessment tool for tailored endoscopic screening of GC in China. Risk Evaluation for Stomach Cancer by Yourself (RESCUE), an online tool was developed to aid the use of GCRS.
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.