A prediction model for metachronous colorectal cancer: development and validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Being able to estimate the risk of metachronous disease in a patient with colorectal cancer (CRC) could enable risk-appropriate surveillance. The aim of this study was to develop a risk-prediction model to estimate individual 10-year risk of metachronous disease following a CRC diagnosis. METHODS: A population-based cohort of patients with CRC was recruited soon after diagnosis between 1997 and 2012 from the United States, Canada, and Australia. Cox regression with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator penalization was used to identify factors that predicted the risk of a new primary CRC diagnosed at least 1 year after the initial CRC diagnosis. Potential predictors included demography, anthropometry, lifestyle factors, comorbidities, personal and family cancer history, medication use, age at diagnosis, and pathological features of the first CRC. Internal validation through bootstrapping was used to evaluate the discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: We included 6085 CRC cases; 138 (2.3%) of these cases were diagnosed with metachronous disease over a median of 12 years (IQR = 5-17 years). Metachronous CRC risk was predicted by body mass index; smoking status; level of physical activity; family history of cancer and synchronous CRC; stage, grade, histological type, and DNA mismatch repair status; and age at diagnosis of the first CRC. The model was valid with a C statistic of 0.65 (95% CI = 0.63 to 0.68) and a calibration slope of 0.873 (SD = 0.087). CONCLUSIONS: Metachronous CRC can be predicted with reasonable accuracy using a prediction model that consists of clinical variables collected as part of routine practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".