ArticleBMC cancer2025
Development and validation of the CHI-CAT score: a novel tool for assessing cancer-associated venous thromboembolism risk in China.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying patients at risk for VTE and stratifying that risk is critical to determine who will benefit from thromboprophylaxis. China's clinical practice still faces limitations, particularly regarding systematic and practical VTE risk assessment tools for cancer patients. This study aims to develop and validate the CHIna's Cancer-Associated venous Thromboembolism risk assessment tool (CHI-CAT score) compared to the Khorana score.
methodsCancer patients aged 18 or older hospitalized in the Third People's Hospital of Chengdu from March 2022 to September 2023 were retrospectively involved in this study. The cohort was divided into two groups based on whether they experienced VTE. Patients with VTE were compared to those without VTE according to their Khorana and CHI-CAT scores, respectively. Model discrimination performance was comprehensively evaluated using the standard sensitivity, specificity, maximum approximate entry index, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve(AUC).
resultsData from 868 patients were analyzed. The CHI-CAT score was developed from a derivation cohort (n = 428) and further assessed in the validation cohort (n = 440). The predictive threshold for the risk assessment tool was set at 8 points. The AUC of the CHI-CAT score was 0.808 (95% CI, 0.715-0.901), with a significance level of P < 0.001. The verification results indicate that the AUC of the CHI-CAT and Khorana scores were 0.782 and 0.662, respectively, with a significance level of P < 0.001. The sensitivity of these two models was 0.826 and 0.478, respectively, while the specificity was 0.640 and 0.751.
conclusionsThe CHI-CAT score has been developed and validated, demonstrating relatively comprehensive components and a predictive capability that exceeds the Khorana score. However, its reliability and validation need improvement through testing in larger internal and external retrospective cohorts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.