SynthesisIranian journal of medical sciences2024
Efficacy of ColonFlag as a Complete Blood Count-Based Machine Learning Algorithm for Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Iranian journal of medical sciences, 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.
- The use of blood test trends in cancer detection: a scoping review.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2026Review
- AI-driven pre-screening for colorectal cancer using complete blood counts: toward broader population impact.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is essential to reduce incidence and mortality rates. However, participation in screening remains suboptimal. ColonFlag, a machine learning algorithm using complete blood count (CBC), identifies individuals at high CRC risk using routinely performed tests. This study aims to review the existing literature assessing the efficacy of ColonFlag across diverse populations in multiple countries. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) were followed in reporting this systematic review. Searches were conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar for English articles, using keywords related to CBC, machine learning, ColonFlag, and CRC, covering the first development study from 2016 to August 2023. The Cochrane Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess the risk of bias. Results: A total of 949 articles were identified during the literature search. Ten studies were found to be eligible. ColonFlag yielded Area Under the Curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.736 to 0.82. The sensitivity and specificity ranged from 3.91% to 35.4% and 82.73% to 94%, respectively. The positive predictive values ranged between 2.6% and 9.1%, while the negative predictive values ranged from 97.6% to 99.9%. ColonFlag performed better in shorter time windows, tumors located more proximally, in advanced stages, and in cases of CRC compared to adenoma. Conclusion: While ColonFlag exhibits low sensitivity compared to established screening methods such as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy, its potential to detect CRC before clinical diagnosis suggests an opportunity for identifying more cases than regular screening alone.
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.