Browsing by Subject "Risk prediction"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Development, validation, and evaluation of a risk assessment tool for personalized screening of gastric cancer in Chinese populations.
    (BMC medicine, 2023-04) Zhu, Xia; Lv, Jun; Zhu, Meng; Yan, Caiwang; Deng, Bin; Yu, Canqing; Guo, Yu; Ni, Jing; She, Qiang; Wang, Tianpei; Wang, Jiayu; Jiang, Yue; Chen, Jiaping; Hang, Dong; Song, Ci; Gao, Xuefeng; Wu, Jian; Dai, Juncheng; Ma, Hongxia; Yang, Ling; Chen, Yiping; Song, Mingyang; Wei, Qingyi; Chen, Zhengming; Hu, Zhibin; Shen, Hongbing; Ding, Yanbing; Li, Liming; Jin, Guangfu

    Background

    Effective risk prediction models are lacking for personalized endoscopic screening of gastric cancer (GC). We aimed to develop, validate, and evaluate a questionnaire-based GC risk assessment tool for risk prediction and stratification in the Chinese population.

    Methods

    In this three-stage multicenter study, we first selected eligible variables by Cox regression models and constructed a GC risk score (GCRS) based on regression coefficients in 416,343 subjects (aged 40-75 years) from the China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB, development cohort). In the same age range, we validated the GCRS effectiveness in 13,982 subjects from another independent Changzhou cohort (validation cohort) as well as in 5348 subjects from an endoscopy screening program in Yangzhou. Finally, we categorized participants into low (bottom 20%), intermediate (20-80%), and high risk (top 20%) groups by the GCRS distribution in the development cohort.

    Results

    The GCRS using 11 questionnaire-based variables demonstrated a Harrell's C-index of 0.754 (95% CI, 0.745-0.762) and 0.736 (95% CI, 0.710-0.761) in the two cohorts, respectively. In the validation cohort, the 10-year risk was 0.34%, 1.05%, and 4.32% for individuals with a low (≤ 13.6), intermediate (13.7~30.6), and high (≥ 30.7) GCRS, respectively. In the endoscopic screening program, the detection rate of GC varied from 0.00% in low-GCRS individuals, 0.27% with intermediate GCRS, to 2.59% with high GCRS. A proportion of 81.6% of all GC cases was identified from the high-GCRS group, which represented 28.9% of all the screened participants.

    Conclusions

    The GCRS can be an effective risk assessment tool for tailored endoscopic screening of GC in China. Risk Evaluation for Stomach Cancer by Yourself (RESCUE), an online tool was developed to aid the use of GCRS.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    The ORBIT bleeding score: a simple bedside score to assess bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation.
    (Eur Heart J, 2015-12-07) O'Brien, Emily C; Simon, DaJuanicia N; Thomas, Laine E; Hylek, Elaine M; Gersh, Bernard J; Ansell, Jack E; Kowey, Peter R; Mahaffey, Kenneth W; Chang, Paul; Fonarow, Gregg C; Pencina, Michael J; Piccini, Jonathan P; Peterson, Eric D
    BACKGROUND: Therapeutic decisions in atrial fibrillation (AF) are often influenced by assessment of bleeding risk. However, existing bleeding risk scores have limitations. OBJECTIVES: We sought to develop and validate a novel bleeding risk score using routinely available clinical information to predict major bleeding in a large, community-based AF population. METHODS: We analysed data from Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF), a prospective registry that enrolled incident and prevalent AF patients at 176 US sites. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we identified factors independently associated with major bleeding among patients taking oral anticoagulation (OAC) over a median follow-up of 2 years (interquartile range = 1.6-2.5). We also created a numerical bedside risk score that included the five most predictive risk factors weighted according to their strength of association with major bleeding. The predictive performance of the full model, the simple five-item score, and two existing risk scores (hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile INR, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly, HAS-BLED, and anticoagulation and risk factors in atrial fibrillation, ATRIA) were then assessed in both the ORBIT-AF cohort and a separate clinical trial population, Rivaroxaban Once-daily oral direct factor Xa inhibition compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and embolism trial in atrial fibrillation (ROCKET-AF). RESULTS: Among 7411 ORBIT-AF patients taking OAC, the rate of major bleeding was 4.0/100 person-years. The full continuous model (12 variables) and five-factor ORBIT risk score (older age [75+ years], reduced haemoglobin/haematocrit/history of anaemia, bleeding history, insufficient kidney function, and treatment with antiplatelet) both had good ability to identify those who bled vs. not (C-index 0.69 and 0.67, respectively). These scores both had similar discrimination, but markedly better calibration when compared with the HAS-BLED and ATRIA scores in an external validation population from the ROCKET-AF trial. CONCLUSIONS: The five-element ORBIT bleeding risk score had better ability to predict major bleeding in AF patients when compared with HAS-BLED and ATRIA risk scores. The ORBIT risk score can provide a simple, easily remembered tool to support clinical decision making.