Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38017184›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2023

An optimization framework to guide the choice of thresholds for risk-based cancer screening.

Adam R Brentnall, Emma C Atakpa, Harry Hill, Ruggiero Santeramo, Celeste Damiani, Jack Cuzick, Giovanni Montana, Stephen W Duffy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

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

8 authors.

Adam R BrentnallWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. a.brentnall@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6327-4357
Emma C AtakpaWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Harry HillSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0908-5595
Ruggiero SanteramoWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7107-235X
Celeste DamianiWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1990-6684
Jack CuzickWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Giovanni MontanaWarwick Manufacturing Group, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3942-3900
Stephen W DuffyWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Funding

Breast Cancer Now 2019DecPR1395Cancer Research UK 28396Cancer Research UK 28689
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is uncommon for risk groups defined by statistical or artificial intelligence (AI) models to be chosen by jointly considering model performance and potential interventions available. We develop a framework to rapidly guide choice of risk groups in this manner, and apply it to guide breast cancer screening intervals using an AI model. Linear programming is used to define risk groups that minimize expected advanced cancer incidence subject to resource constraints. In the application risk stratification performance is estimated from a case-control study (2044 cases, 1:1 matching), and other parameters are taken from screening trials and the screening programme in England. Under the model, re-screening in 1 year for the highest 4% AI model risk, in 3 years for the middle 64%, and in 4 years for 32% of the population at lowest risk, was expected to reduce the number of advanced cancers diagnosed by approximately 18 advanced cancers per 1000 diagnosed with triennial screening, for the same average number of screens in the population as triennial screening for all. Sensitivity analyses found the choice of thresholds was robust to model parameters, but the estimated reduction in advanced cancers was not precise and requires further evaluation. Our framework helps define thresholds with the greatest chance of success for reducing the population health burden of cancer when used in risk-adapted screening, which should be further evaluated such as in health-economic modelling based on computer simulation models, and real-world evaluations.

Identifiers

PMID38017184
PMCPMC10684532

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.