SynthesisBMC cancer2025
Insights and limitations of endometrial cancer risk prediction models for clinical applicability: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Natural Products in Endometrial Cancer: Molecular Mechanisms, Preclinical Evidence, and Clinical Perspectives.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEndometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic cancer in high-income countries, with rising incidence rates. Risk prediction models can identify high-risk individuals, enabling targeted prevention and early intervention. Despite the development of several multivariable risk models aimed at stratifying EC risk, none have yet been adopted for clinical use in cancer prevention. This systematic review critically examines the performance, validation, and clinical applicability of existing EC risk prediction models.
methodsWe systematically searched online search engines PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE for EC risk model publications written in English from January 1, 2000, to October 9, 2024. Studies were selected based on the inclusion of multivariable models for EC risk estimation. Data extraction focused on cohort characteristics, predictors included, validation efforts, and model performance metrics such as discrimination (C-statistics or AUROC) and calibration (E/O ratio or calibration slopes). The quality of model reporting was assessed using the TRIPOD-AI guidelines.
resultsNine risk prediction models were identified, predominantly based on epidemiological factors, with four incorporating polygenic risk scores, and one using blood biomarkers. Most models were developed in datasets of postmenopausal women of White or European ancestry from Western countries. Only five models were externally validated; most exhibited moderate discrimination (AUROC ranging from 0.64 to 0.77). Calibration varied, with some models showing significant overestimation of risk. Importantly, the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the development datasets limits their generalizability, particularly for non-White populations.
conclusionsCurrent EC risk prediction models show moderate performance but suffer from limited external validation, homogeneity in demographics, and exclusion of diverse populations. Future research should focus on broadening participant diversity and incorporating new risk factors, such as hormonal intrauterine device use, hysterectomies, environmental exposures, and socio-economic status. Developing dynamic models that account for these factors and model outcomes that span various forms of the disease can improve clinical relevance. Personalized, risk-based approaches targeting high-risk groups may offer a viable path forward for EC screening and prevention strategies, ensuring more equitable cancer care and improving patient outcomes.
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.