ArticleCancer medicine2026
Core Self-Reported Variables for Next-Generation Colorectal Cancer Risk Prediction: An International Expert Consensus Study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 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
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer remains a major global health burden, and although population-based screening is beneficial, current programs have notable limitations. Risk-stratified screening has been proposed, yet existing prediction models vary in performance and in the inclusion of predictors. Data-adaptive modeling (machine learning) may strengthen risk prediction but depends on high-quality input data. Expert consensus methods offer a structured way to identify clinically meaningful variables for future tools.
objectiveTo establish expert consensus on the selection of relevant variables and refinement of self-reported questionnaire items for next-generation colorectal cancer risk-prediction tools.
methodsA modified Delphi study was conducted with seventeen internationally recognized experts. The process consisted of anonymized, email-based rounds aimed at refining a questionnaire for colorectal cancer risk prediction. Across three iterative rounds, experts rated item relevance, proposed revisions, and identified missing domains while reviewing group-level summaries of ratings and comments. Items not meeting predefined thresholds were removed, and validated lifestyle-related items were incorporated. Consensus was defined as 15 of 17 experts rating an item within a similar three-point range.
resultsAll seventeen experts completed all rounds. The final I-CRC-RISK Questionnaire comprises 23 items across seven categories: Demography, Health Status, Family Health History, Dietary Patterns, Physical Activity, Smoking, and Alcohol Consumption. Expert consensus was reached for 19 items.
conclusionThe I-CRC-RISK Questionnaire provides an expert-informed set of self-reported variables to support future risk prediction efforts. It offers a structured basis for further validation and psychometric testing before prospective data collection may be undertaken. This foundational work could enhance the predictive performance of both traditional and machine-learning approaches by improving the consistency and relevance of input data.
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.