Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38007948›Full record

ArticleEBioMedicine2023

A pancreatic cancer risk prediction model (Prism) developed and validated on large-scale US clinical data.

Kai Jia, Steven Kundrot, Matvey B Palchuk, Jeff Warnick, Kathryn Haapala, Irving D Kaplan, Martin Rinard, Limor Appelbaum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EBioMedicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

Kai JiaDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. Electronic address: jiakai@mit.edu.
Steven KundrotTriNetX, LLC, Cambridge, MA, 02140, USA. Electronic address: steve.kundrot@trinetx.com.
Matvey B PalchukTriNetX, LLC, Cambridge, MA, 02140, USA. Electronic address: matvey.palchuk@trinetx.com.
Jeff WarnickTriNetX, LLC, Cambridge, MA, 02140, USA. Electronic address: jeff.warnick@trinetx.com.
Kathryn HaapalaTriNetX, LLC, Cambridge, MA, 02140, USA. Electronic address: kathryn.haapala@trinetx.com.
Irving D KaplanBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. Electronic address: ikaplan@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Martin RinardDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. Electronic address: rinard@csail.mit.edu.
Limor AppelbaumBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. Electronic address: lappelb1@bidmc.harvard.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPancreatic Duct Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) screening can enable early-stage disease detection and long-term survival. Current guidelines use inherited predisposition, with about 10% of PDAC cases eligible for screening. Using Electronic Health Record (EHR) data from a multi-institutional federated network, we developed and validated a PDAC RISk Model (Prism) for the general US population to extend early PDAC detection.

methodsNeural Network (PrismNN) and Logistic Regression (PrismLR) were developed using EHR data from 55 US Health Care Organisations (HCOs) to predict PDAC risk 6-18 months before diagnosis for patients 40 years or older. Model performance was assessed using Area Under the Curve (AUC) and calibration plots. Models were internal-externally validated by geographic location, race, and time. Simulated model deployment evaluated Standardised Incidence Ratio (SIR) and other metrics.

findingsWith 35,387 PDAC cases, 1,500,081 controls, and 87 features per patient, PrismNN obtained a test AUC of 0.826 (95% CI: 0.824-0.828) (PrismLR: 0.800 (95% CI: 0.798-0.802)). PrismNN's average internal-external validation AUCs were 0.740 for locations, 0.828 for races, and 0.789 (95% CI: 0.762-0.816) for time. At SIR = 5.10 (exceeding the current screening inclusion threshold) in simulated model deployment, PrismNN sensitivity was 35.9% (specificity 95.3%).

interpretationPrism models demonstrated good accuracy and generalizability across diverse populations. PrismNN could find 3.5 times more cases at comparable risk than current screening guidelines. The small number of features provided a basis for model interpretation. Integration with the federated network provided data from a large, heterogeneous patient population and a pathway to future clinical deployment.

fundingPrevent Cancer Foundation, TriNetX, Boeing, DARPA, NSF, and Aarno Labs.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalPancreatic NeoplasmsHumansLogistic ModelsMulticenter Studies as TopicRetrospective StudiesElectronic health recordsFederated dataMachine learningPancreatic cancerRisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID38007948
PMCPMC10755107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.