ArticleBMC medicine2025
Exploring metabolomics for colorectal cancer risk prediction: evidence from the UK Biobank and ESTHER cohorts.
Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Urinary metabolomics may improve prediction of overall survival beyond tumor stage in colorectal cancer: results from the ColoCare study.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2026Article
- Metabolomics and Human Health: Progress, Insights, Challenges and the Concept of a Healthy Metabolome.Biomolecules · 2026Review
- Study on the construction of a predictive model for delayed encephalopathy after acute carbon monoxide poisoning.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- From obesity to cancer: Gut microbiome mechanisms, biomarkers, and U.S. public health strategies.Oncoscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile metabolic pathway alterations are linked to colorectal cancer (CRC), the predictive value of pre-diagnostic metabolomic profiling in CRC risk assessment remains to be clarified. This study evaluated the predictive performance of a metabolomics risk panel (MRP) both independently and in combination with established risk factors.
methodsWe derived, internally validated (IV), and externally validated (EV) a metabolomics risk panel (MRP) for CRC from data of the UK Biobank (UKB) and the German ESTHER cohort. Baseline blood samples were assessed for 249 metabolites using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy analysis. We applied LASSO Cox proportional hazards regression to identify metabolites for inclusion in the MRP and evaluated the model performance using the concordance index (C-index). We compared the performance of the MRP to an environmental risk panel (ERP; sex, age, body mass index, smoking status, and alcohol consumption) and a genetic risk panel (GRP; polygenic risk score).
resultsThe study included 154,892 participants of the UKB cohort (mean age at baseline 54.5 years; 55.5% female) with 1879 incident CRC and 3242 participants of the ESTHER cohort (mean age 61.5 years; 52.2% female) with 103 CRC cases. Twenty-three metabolites, primarily amino acid and lipid-related metabolites, were selected for the MRP, showing moderate predictive performance (C-index 0.60 [IV] and 0.54 [EV]). The ERP and GRP showed superior performance, with C-index values of 0.73 (IV) and 0.69 (EV). Adding the MRP to these risk models did not change the C-indices in both cohorts.
conclusionsGenetic and environmental risk information provided strong predictive accuracy for CRC risk, with no improvements from adding metabolomics data. These findings suggest that metabolomics data may have limited impact on enhancing established CRC risk models 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.