ArticleBMJ oncology2024
Novel machine learning algorithm in risk prediction model for pan-cancer risk: application in a large prospective cohort.
Article in BMJ oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Ovarian cancer recurrence prediction: comparing confirmatory to real-world predictors with machine learning.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- Machine learning model for predicting hepatitis C seroconversion in methadone maintenance patients in China.BMJ public health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop and validate machine-learning models that predict the risk of pan-cancer incidence using demographic, questionnaire and routine health check-up data in a large Asian population. Methods and analysis: This study is a prospective cohort study including 433 549 participants from the prospective MJ cohort including a male cohort (n=208 599) and a female cohort (n=224 950). Results: During an 8-year median follow-up, 5143 cancers occurred in males and 4764 in females. Compared with Lasso-Cox and Random Survival Forests, XGBoost showed superior performance for both cohorts. The XGBoost model with all 155 features in males and 160 features in females achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.877 and 0.750, respectively. Light models with 31 variables for males and 11 variables for females showed comparable performance: an AUC of 0.876 (95% CI 0.858 to 0.894) in the overall population and 0.818 (95% CI 0.795 to 0.841) in those aged ≥40 years in the male cohort and an AUC of 0.746 (95% CI 0.721 to 0.771) in the overall population and 0.641 (95% CI 0.605 to 0.677) in those aged ≥40 years in the female cohort. High-risk individuals have at least ninefold higher risk of pan-cancer incidence compared with low-risk groups. Conclusion: We developed and internally validated the first machine-learning models based on routine health check-up data to predict pan-cancer risk in the general population and achieved generally good discriminatory ability with a small set of predictors. External validation is warranted before the implementation of our risk model in clinical practice.
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.