Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38463224›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024

Machine learning-based identification of colorectal advanced adenoma using clinical and laboratory data: a phase I exploratory study in accordance with updated World Endoscopy Organization guidelines for noninvasive colorectal cancer screening tests.

Huijie Wang, Xu Cao, Ping Meng, Caihua Zheng, Jinli Liu, Yong Liu, Tianpeng Zhang, Xiaofang Li, Xiaoyang Shi, Xiaoxing Sun and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Huijie Wang *Department of Endoscopy, Shijiazhuang Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Xu Cao *Department of Endoscopy, Shijiazhuang Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Ping MengDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shijiazhuang Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Caihua ZhengDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shijiazhuang Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Jinli LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shijiazhuang Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Yong LiuDepartment of Endoscopy, Shijiazhuang Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Tianpeng ZhangDepartment of Anus & Intestine Surgery, Shijiazhuang Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Xiaofang LiDepartment of Endoscopy, Shijiazhuang Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Xiaoyang ShiDepartment of Endoscopy, Shijiazhuang Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Xiaoxing SunDepartment of Endoscopy, Shijiazhuang Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.
Teng ZhangInstitute of Traditional Chinese Medicine, North China University of Science and Technology, Tangshan, China.
Haiying ZuoGraduate School, Hebei North University, Zhangjiakou, China.
Zhichao WangGraduate School, Hebei North University, Zhangjiakou, China.
Xin FuResearch and Development Department, Wuhan Metware Biotechnology Co., Ltd, Wuhan, China.
Huan LiResearch and Development Department, Wuhan Metware Biotechnology Co., Ltd, Wuhan, China.
Huanwei ZhengDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shijiazhuang Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The recent World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) guidelines now recognize precursor lesions of colorectal cancer (CRC) as legitimate screening targets. However, an optimal screening method for detecting advanced adenoma (AA), a significant precursor lesion, remains elusive. Methods: We employed five machine learning methods, using clinical and laboratory data, to develop and validate a diagnostic model for identifying patients with AA (569 AAs vs. 3228 controls with normal colonoscopy). The best-performing model was selected based on sensitivity and specificity assessments. Its performance in recognizing adenoma-carcinoma sequence was evaluated in line with guidelines, and adjustable thresholds were established. For comparison, the Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) was also selected. Results: The XGBoost model demonstrated superior performance in identifying AA, with a sensitivity of 70.8% and a specificity of 83.4%. It successfully detected 42.7% of non-advanced adenoma (NAA) and 80.1% of CRC. The model-transformed risk assessment scale provided diagnostic performance at different positivity thresholds. Compared to FOBT, the XGBoost model better identified AA and NAA, however, was less effective in CRC. Conclusion: The XGBoost model, compared to FOBT, offers improved accuracy in identifying AA patients. While it may not meet the recommendations of some organizations, it provides value for individuals who are unable to use FOBT for various reasons.

Indexed as

adjustable thresholdsadvanced colorectal adenomamachine learningnon-invasive testrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID38463224
PMCPMC10921227

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.