ArticleOncology letters2025
Establishment and validation of a clinical prediction model for colorectal adenoma risk factors.
Article in Oncology letters, 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.
- Endoscopic characterization and development of a prediction model for colorectal adenomatous polyps.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2026Article
- Exploring risk factors for new-onset atrial fibrillation in elderly patients with myocardial infarction based on serum NT-proBNP, RDW, Hcy, and clinical parameters: an exploratory study using LASSO-logistic regression.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Value of the Combined Detection of Microbiota, Multiple Inflammation-Related Indicators, Serum Lipid Indices, and Tumour Markers in Colorectal Polyps: A Case-Control Study.International journal of medical sciences · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal adenomas are benign tumors of the colorectal mucosal epithelium that have malignant potential and are regarded as precancerous lesions of colorectal cancer, for which the specific risk factors are unclear. The present study aimed to identify independent risk factors for colorectal adenoma to develop a prediction model and test its predictive value. A retrospective analysis was performed using data from patients who underwent electronic colonoscopy at the Department of Proctology (Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine; Jinan, China) from January 2013 to December 2023 and had polyps removed during colonoscopy. Patients with colorectal adenoma were included in the case group, whilst those with no visible abnormalities on endoscopy or with non-adenomatous polyps were included as a control group. The patients were randomly divided into a training and validation group in a 7:3 ratio. Variables were screened using single-component analysis and the filtered variables were employed in multivariate logistic regression to create a clinical prediction model. Finally, the model was internally and externally validated. A total of 730 patients were included in the present study, with 286 assigned to the case group and 444 to the control group. After the initial screening of 39 variables, 12 continued to the next round, resulting in four potential predictors including age, daily number of bowel movements, thrombin time and the number of polyps. A prediction model was created based on these variables. Regarding internal validation, the C-index was 0.7054 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.6596-0.7512] and the prediction probability in the calibration curve was close to the diagonal line of the calibration graph, indicating that the prediction probability of the model was reasonable. Regarding external validation, the C-index in the validation cohort was 0.6306 (95% CI, 0.5560-0.7053) and the calibration curve also demonstrated good identification capabilities. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test revealed that the model had a reasonable calibration degree, with χ
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.