ArticleScientific reports2023
Early detection of colorectal cancer by leveraging Dutch primary care consultation notes with free text embeddings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Generative artificial intelligence for general practice; new potential ahead, but are we ready?The European journal of general practice · 2025Article
- 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to assess the added predictive performance that free-text Dutch consultation notes provide in detecting colorectal cancer in primary care, in comparison to currently used models. We developed, evaluated and compared three prediction models for colorectal cancer (CRC) in a large primary care database with 60,641 patients. The prediction model with both known predictive features and free-text data (with TabTxt AUROC: 0.823) performs statistically significantly better (p < 0.05) than the other two models with only tabular (as used nowadays) and text data, respectively (AUROC Tab: 0.767; Txt: 0.797). The specificity of the two models that use demographics and known CRC features (with specificity Tab: 0.321; TabTxt: 0.335) are higher than that of the model with only free-text (specificity Txt: 0.234). The Txt and, to a lesser degree, TabTxt model are well calibrated, while the Tab model shows slight underprediction at both tails. As expected with an outcome prevalence below 0.01, all models show much uncalibrated predictions in the extreme upper tail (top 1%). Free-text consultation notes show promising results to improve the predictive performance over established prediction models that only use structured features. Clinical future implications for our CRC use case include that such improvement may help lowering the number of referrals for suspected CRC to medical specialists.
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.