ArticleNature communications2025
Development and external validation of prediction algorithms to improve early diagnosis of cancer.
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.
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.
- QResearch primary care records linked to national hospital and cancer registry data: a validation study.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- A data and knowledge cross-level fusion-driven learning framework for detecting missing diagnosis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Constructing multicancer risk cohorts using national data from medical helplines and secondary care.NPJ digital medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.