Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40790537›Full record

ArticleBiomarker research2025

Development and validation of an integrative 54 biomarker-based risk identification model for multi-cancer in 42,666 individuals: a population-based prospective study to guide advanced screening strategies.

Renjia Zhao, Huangbo Yuan, Yanfeng Jiang, Zhenqiu Liu, Ruilin Chen, Shuo Wang, Linyao Lu, Ziyu Yuan, Zhixi Su, Qiye He and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomarker research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 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. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

18 authors.

Renjia Zhao *State Key Laboratory of Genetics and Development of Complex Phenotypes, ZhangjiangFudan International Innovation Center, Human Phenome Institute, Fudan University, Songhu Road 2005, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Huangbo Yuan *State Key Laboratory of Genetics and Development of Complex Phenotypes, ZhangjiangFudan International Innovation Center, Human Phenome Institute, Fudan University, Songhu Road 2005, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Yanfeng JiangState Key Laboratory of Genetics and Development of Complex Phenotypes, ZhangjiangFudan International Innovation Center, Human Phenome Institute, Fudan University, Songhu Road 2005, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Zhenqiu LiuState Key Laboratory of Genetics and Development of Complex Phenotypes, ZhangjiangFudan International Innovation Center, Human Phenome Institute, Fudan University, Songhu Road 2005, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Ruilin ChenDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Shuo WangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Linyao LuDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Ziyu YuanFudan University Taizhou Institute of Health Sciences, Taizhou, China.
Zhixi SuSinglera Genomics (Shanghai) Ltd, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Qiye HeSinglera Genomics (Shanghai) Ltd, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Kelin XuFudan University Taizhou Institute of Health Sciences, Taizhou, China.
Tiejun ZhangFudan University Taizhou Institute of Health Sciences, Taizhou, China.
Li JinState Key Laboratory of Genetics and Development of Complex Phenotypes, ZhangjiangFudan International Innovation Center, Human Phenome Institute, Fudan University, Songhu Road 2005, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Ming LuClinical Epidemiology Unit, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, 250012, China.
Weimin YeDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Rui LiuSinglera Genomics (Shanghai) Ltd, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Chen SuoFudan University Taizhou Institute of Health Sciences, Taizhou, China. suochen@fudan.edu.cn.
Xingdong ChenState Key Laboratory of Genetics and Development of Complex Phenotypes, ZhangjiangFudan International Innovation Center, Human Phenome Institute, Fudan University, Songhu Road 2005, Shanghai, 200433, China. xingdongchen@fudan.edu.cn.

Funding

National Key Research and Development program of China 2023YFC2508001National Natural Science Foundation of China 82073637Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project 2023SHZDZX02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly identification of high-risk individuals is crucial for optimizing cancer screening, particularly when considering expensive and invasive methods such as multi-omics technologies and endoscopic procedures. However, developing a robust, practical multi-cancer risk prediction model that integrates diverse, multi-scale data and with proper validation remains a significant challenge.

methodsWe initialized the FuSion study by recruiting 42,666 participants from Taizhou, China, with a discovery cohort (n = 16,340) and an independent validation cohort (n = 26,308) after exclusion criteria. We integrated multi-scale data from 54 blood-derived biomarkers and 26 epidemiological exposures to develop a risk prediction model for five common cancers, including lung, esophageal, liver, gastric, and colorectal cancer. Employing five supervised machine learning approaches, we used a LASSO-based feature selection strategy to identify the most informative predictors. The model was trained and internally validated in the discovery cohort, externally applied in the validation cohort, and further evaluated through a prospective clinical follow-up to assess cancer events via clinical examinations.

resultsThe final model comprising four key biomarkers along with age, sex, and smoking intensity, achieving an AUROC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.723-0.814) for five-year risk prediction. High-risk individuals (17.19% of the cohort) accounted for 50.42% of incident cancer cases, with a 15.19-fold increased risk compared to the low-risk group. During follow-up of 2,863 high-risk subjects, 9.64% were newly diagnosed with cancer or precancerous lesions. Notably, cancer detection in the high-risk group was 5.02 times higher than in the low-risk group and 1.74 times higher than in the intermediate-risk group. In particular, the incidence of esophageal cancers in the high-risk group was 16.84 times that of the low-risk group.

conclusionsThis is the first population-based prospective study in a large Chinese cohort that leverage multi-scale data including biomarkers for multi-cancer risk prediction. Our effective risk stratification model not only enhances early cancer detection but also lays the foundation for the targeted application of advanced screening methods, including but not limited to multi-omics technologies and endoscopy. These findings support precision prevention strategies and the optimal allocation of healthcare resources.

Indexed as

Cohort studyEarly cancer detectionPrecision medicineProspective follow-up studyRisk stratification modelYield rate

Identifiers

PMID40790537
PMCPMC12341305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.