ArticleJAMA network open2025
Validation of a Risk Score for Cancer-Associated Thrombosis Using Nationwide EHR Data.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disease-specific safety and efficacy of DOACs vs LMWH for CAT in patients with brain metastases: a real-world analysis.Blood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis in hematological malignancies: development and validation of a dynamic model in a multicenter cohort.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Development of novel plasma proteomic biomarkers for cancer-associated thrombosis in an advanced cancer cohort.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2026Article
- Temporal validation of the electronic health record cancer-associated thrombosis model in patients with low bleeding risk.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Advancing Real-World Evidence Generation: Growth and Lessons Learned from the Early Years of Cosmos.ACI open · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with increased mortality and morbidity in patients with cancer. Existing risk prediction models are typically validated within individual sites, a fragmented approach that limits clinical adoption. Objective: To validate the electronic health record cancer-associated thrombosis (EHR-CAT) score compared with the benchmark Khorana score in a contemporary cohort of patients with cancer across the nation, before and after treatment, excluding those at high risk of bleeding. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study included patients in a nationwide longitudinal EHR database from January 2018 to December 2023 with follow-up continuing to April 2025. Patients with newly diagnosed, invasive, solid, or hematologic malignant neoplasms (defined using validated International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-10-CM] algorithms) receiving systemic therapy (defined using the first antineoplastic medication) were included. Those with recent history of acute VTE diagnosis or anticoagulant prescription were excluded. Exposures: Demographics, risk model variables, and common anticoagulant trial exclusion criteria (as a proxy for identifying people at high risk of bleeding) were extracted on or before index therapy initiation date. Main Outcomes: Incident VTE and bleeding outcomes at 6 months were defined using validated ICD-10-CM algorithms. Results: A total of 732 594 patients (median [IQR] age, 65.0 [56.9-73.0] years; 425 124 female [58.0%]; 25 634 Asian [3.5%], 94 269 Black [12.9%], 48 266 Hispanic [6.6%], 583 047 White [76.9%]) with active cancer receiving systemic therapy between 2018 and 2023 from 184 health systems were identified. With a median (IQR) follow-up of 676 (340-1151) days, the incidence of 6-month VTE, bleeding, and mortality was 4.7% (34 499 patients), 3.7% (26 993 patients), and 8.4% (60 239 patients), respectively. Bleeding risk was higher in the 26.0% of patients (190 413) meeting anticoagulant trial exclusion criteria (7.2% vs 2.4%; hazard ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 2.5-2.5]). The EHR-CAT score stratified patients into discriminative risk groups (C statistic, 0.70-0.71) both before and after exclusion for bleeding risk. When compared with the benchmark Khorana score (C statistic, 0.63), EHR-CAT reclassified 20% of patients into revised categories with improved prediction accuracy. Furthermore, EHR-CAT had consistent calibration in subgroups by age, sex, race, ethnicity, and individual health system sites. Conclusions: This prognostic study of the EHR-CAT risk score demonstrated the external validity and feasibility of using readily available structured EHR data to estimate VTE risk in patients with cancer.
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.