ArticleDigital health
Stacked random forest model for colorectal cancer detection using complete blood counts.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In China, adherence to screening colonoscopy among eligible individuals remains suboptimal, primarily due to cost concerns and potential adverse effects. A machine learning model utilizing complete blood count (CBC) data could help prioritize colonoscopy referrals and improve screening participation. Method: This multicenter study included participants who underwent CBC testing within three months before colonoscopy. CBC data were classified into three types (A, B, and C) based on hematology analyzer capabilities, with Type C excluded from analysis. Using Types A and B, we developed a stacking machine learning model incorporating 24 CBC features and 5 combined CBC components to predict colorectal cancer (CRC). Model performance was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC), specificity, and sensitivity. Results: The study included 1795 CRC cases and 26,380 cancer-free individuals with CBC data. On external validation, the model achieved 80.3% specificity and 65.2% sensitivity. Notably, it demonstrated 41% sensitivity for Stage I CRC and 57.6% sensitivity for Stages I-III combined. Conclusions: CBC testing, combined with electronic medical record data, is a low-cost and widely accessible tool. Our robust CRC risk prediction model can serve as a preliminary screening method, aiding in colonoscopy referral decisions and improving CRC screening efficiency.
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.