Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40634390›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Predicting time-to-first cancer diagnosis across multiple cancer types.

Kien Lau, Gregory R Hart, Jun Deng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Risk prediction for lung cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-regression.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  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

3 authors.

Kien LauDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA.
Gregory R HartBill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA.
Jun DengDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. jun.deng@yale.edu.

Funding

Office of Integrative Activities DMS 1918925
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer causes over 10 million deaths annually worldwide, with 40.5% of Americans expected to be diagnosed in their lifetime. Early detection is critical; for liver cancer, survival rates improve from 4 to 37% when caught early. However, predicting time to first cancer diagnosis is challenging due to its complex and multifactorial nature. We developed predictive models using the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial for training and the UK Biobank for evaluation to estimate time-to-first cancer diagnosis for high-incidence cancers, including lung, liver, and bladder cancers. Utilizing Cox proportional hazards models with elastic net regularization, survival decision trees, and random survival forests, we used 46 sex-agnostic demographic, clinical, and behavioral features. The Cox model achieved a C-index of 0.813 for lung cancer, surpassing non-parametric machine learning methods in accuracy and interpretability. Cancer-specific models consistently outperformed non-specific cancer models, as shown by time-dependent AUC analyses. Scaled Cox coefficients revealed novel insights, including BMI's inverse association with lung cancer risk. Our findings offer interpretable, accurate tools for personalized cancer risk assessment, improving early detection and bridging computational advances with clinical practice.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsAgedFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedProportional Hazards ModelsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID40634390
PMCPMC12241622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.