ArticleBMJ public health2026
Impact of cancer outcome data source on the diagnostic accuracy of ovarian cancer prediction models: a primary care cohort study.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Psoriasis and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study in Korea.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Electronic health records are widely used to develop diagnostic prediction models for cancer. Some studies use cancer registry (CR) data, the gold standard for cancer case recordings, whereas others rely on data from alternative healthcare sources. We aimed to evaluate the impact of using CR and non-CR data sources on the diagnostic accuracy of the Ovatools ovarian cancer (OC) risk prediction model. Methods: Retrospective cohort study using linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), hospital episodic statistics (HES) and CR data from women tested for cancer antigen 125 (CA125) in England (1 May 2011-31 December 2017). Ovatools model performance and diagnostic accuracy were compared when different data sources were used, alone and in combination, to identify the outcome, OC diagnosis in the year after CA125 testing. Threshold accuracy was measured at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence ≥3% risk threshold. Results: Among 340 769 CA125-tested women, OC incidence within 12 months was highest when using HES data (0.84%), compared with CR (0.75%) and CPRD (0.65%). Area under the curve was highest when using CR alone (0.924) and lower using CPRD (0.903) or CR+CPRD+HES (0.892). At a ≥3% risk threshold, sensitivity was highest when using CR data (73.2%) and lower using CPRD (68.8%). The positive predictive value was lowest using CPRD (13.8%) and highest using CPRD+CR+HES (19.4%). Conclusion: Using an OC exemplar, we found moderate variation in model performance and threshold accuracy when different data sources were used to define cancer. To ensure cancer prediction models perform as expected in real world clinical practice, gold standard data sources, such as CR data, should be used for model development and validation.
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.