Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40335498›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

Development and external validation of prediction algorithms to improve early diagnosis of cancer.

J Hippisley-Cox, C A Coupland

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

J Hippisley-CoxQueen Mary University of London, London, UK. julia.hippisley-cox@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2479-7283
C A CouplandUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

CSRD VA 1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer prediction algorithms are used in the UK to identify individuals at high probability of having a current, as yet undiagnosed cancer with the intention of improving early diagnosis and treatment. Here we develop and externally validate two diagnostic prediction algorithms to estimate the probability of having cancer for 15 cancer types. The first incorporates multiple predictors including age, sex, deprivation, smoking, alcohol, family history, medical diagnoses and symptoms (both general and cancer-specific symptoms). The second additionally includes commonly used blood tests (full blood count and liver function tests). We use multinomial logistic regression to develop separate equations in men and women to predict the absolute probability of 15 cancer types using a population of 7.46 million adults aged 18 to 84 years in England. We evaluate performance in two separate validation cohorts (total 2.64 million patients in England and 2.74 million from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). The models have improved performance compared with existing models with improved discrimination, calibration, sensitivity and net benefit. These algorithms provide superior prediction estimates in the UK compared with existing scores and could lead to better clinical decision-making and potentially earlier diagnosis of cancer.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsEarly Detection of CancerNeoplasmsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEnglandFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPrediction AlgorithmsUnited KingdomYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40335498
PMCPMC12059126

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.