ArticleBMJ oncology2025
Genetics, primary care records and lifestyle factors for short-term dynamic risk prediction of colorectal cancer: prospective study of asymptomatic and symptomatic UK Biobank participants.
Article in BMJ oncology, 2025. 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.
- Article
- Predicting short-term risk of colorectal cancer using primary care records, genetics and lifestyle factors.BMJ oncology · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To quantify the contributions of polygenic scores, primary care records (presenting symptoms, medical history and common blood tests) and lifestyle factors, for short-term risk prediction of colorectal cancer (CRC) in general and symptomatic individuals. Methods and analysis: This prospective cohort study used data from the UK Biobank with follow-up until 2018. It included 160 507 participants with linked primary care records and a subcohort of 42 782 participants with recent CRC-related symptoms. The outcome was the first-recorded CRC diagnosis within 2 years. Dynamic risk models with time-varying predictors were derived using a super-landmark framework. Model discrimination was assessed through Harrel's C-index, and predictor contributions to model discrimination were evaluated using inclusion-order-agnostic Shapley values. Results: C-indices (95% CIs) were 0.73 (0.72 to 0.73) and 0.69 (0.68 to 0.70) for the general and symptomatic participants, respectively. Shapley contributions to model discrimination (95% CIs) were core predictors (eg, age, sex) 33% (25% to 42%) (symptomatic: 34% (9% to 75%)), polygenic scores 16% (8% to 26%) (8% (-21% to 35%)), primary care blood tests 32% (19% to 43%) (41% (16% to 73%)), medical history 11% (4% to 17%) (9% (-25% to 37%)), lifestyle factors 6% (0% to 11%) (-5% (-32% to 13.4%)) and symptoms 3% (-2% to 7%) (13% (-19% to 41%)). Conclusions: Polygenic scores contribute substantially to short-term risk prediction for CRC in both general and symptomatic populations; however, the contribution of information in primary care records (including presenting symptoms, medical history and common blood tests) is greater. Lifestyle factors not routinely collected in primary care contribute minimally.
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.