ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Validation of a Digital Platform for Colorectal Cancer Risk Stratification and Personalized Screening Recommendations.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable through risk-adapted screening, yet participation remains below recommended targets. Digital platforms may help bridge this gap by identifying at-risk individuals and facilitating timely preventive evaluation. We aimed to validate the accuracy of ChequeáTuColon (CTC), a digital tool designed to stratify CRC risk, detect alarm symptoms, and provide personalized guideline-based screening recommendations.
methodsWe conducted a validation study using data from individuals who completed the CTC digital assessment during a CRC awareness campaign at a tertiary care center in March 2026. A random sample was selected for validation. Three expert gastroenterologists, blinded to CTC outputs, independently reviewed participant data and assigned risk categories and screening recommendations. We evaluated concordance across four domains: alarm symptom detection, risk stratification, indication for genetic evaluation, and recommended screening initiation age.
resultsOf 35758 individuals who completed the assessment, 395 were randomly selected for validation (median age 59 years; range 23-83). Overall, 50.4% were classified as average risk, 19.5% as increased risk, and 4.8% as high risk; 20.3% reported alarm symptoms. Among asymptomatic average-risk individuals, 20% were overdue for screening (mean delay 9.5 years), compared to 45% among increased- and high-risk individuals (mean delay 22 years). CTC demonstrated complete agreement with expert adjudication across all domains (100%; κ=1.000).
conclusionsCTC achieved perfect concordance with expert guideline-based recommendations. The platform also identified substantial screening delays, particularly among higher-risk individuals, which highlights a potential role for digital tools in supporting guideline-based screening implementation. Further evaluation of patients' experience and downstream screening completion are still needed to evaluate its impact in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42663895What 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.