MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410946881 · doi:10.2196/64506

Predicting Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer in Individuals Below Screening Age Using Machine Learning and Real-World Data: Case Control Study

2025· article· en· W4410946881 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chengkun Sun, Erin M. Mobley, Michael B. Quillen, Max Parker, Meghan Daly, Isabela Visintin, Ziad T. Awad, Jennifer N. Fishe, Alexander S. Parker, Thomas J. George, Jiang Bian, Jie Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogistic regressionMedicineRandom forestCohortMachine learningConfoundingColorectal cancerArtificial intelligencePropensity score matchingNomogramCancerOncologyInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Colorectal cancer is now the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among young Americans. Accurate early prediction and a thorough understanding of the risk factors for early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) are vital for effective prevention and treatment, particularly for patients below the recommended screening age. Objective: Our study aims to predict EOCRC using machine learning (ML) and structured electronic health record data for individuals under the screening age of 45 years, with the aim of exploring potential risk and protective factors that could support early diagnosis. Methods: We identified a cohort of patients under the age of 45 years from the OneFlorida+ Clinical Research Consortium. Given the distinct pathology of colon cancer (CC) and rectal cancer (RC), we created separate prediction models for each cancer type with various ML algorithms. We assessed multiple prediction time windows (ie, 0, 1, 3, and 5 y) and ensured robustness through propensity score matching to account for confounding variables including sex, race, ethnicity, and birth year. We conducted a comprehensive performance evaluation using metrics including area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and F1-score. Both linear (ie, logistic regression, support vector machine) and nonlinear (ie, Extreme Gradient Boosting and random forest) models were assessed to enable rigorous comparison across different classification strategies. In addition, we used the Shapley Additive Explanations to interpret the models and identify key risk and protective factors associated with EOCRC. Results: The final cohort included 1358 CC cases with 6790 matched controls, and 560 RC cases with 2800 matched controls. The RC group had a more balanced sex distribution (2:3 male-to-female) compared to the CC group (2:5 male-to-female), and both groups showed diverse racial and ethnic representation. Our predictive models demonstrated reasonable results, with AUC scores for CC prediction of 0.811, 0.748, 0.689, and 0.686 at 0, 1, 3, and 5 years before diagnosis, respectively. For RC prediction, AUC scores were 0.829, 0.771, 0.727, and 0.721 across the same time windows. Key predictive features across both cancer types included immune and digestive system disorders, secondary malignancies, and underweight status. In addition, blood diseases emerged as prominent indicators specifically for CC. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate the potential of ML models leveraging electronic health record data to facilitate the early prediction of EOCRC in individuals under 45 years. By uncovering important risk factors and achieving promising predictive performance, this study provides preliminary insights that could inform future efforts toward earlier detection and prevention in younger populations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CancerSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207