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.
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.
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.
- A Novel Ensemble Framework for Comprehensive Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Treatment: Integration of Gastroenterology-Specific Transformer Language Models and Multiple Decision Trees.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A clinical prediction model for distant metastases of pediatric neuroblastoma: an analysis based on the SEER database.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.