ArticleBMC cancer2026
Full BLOOD count TRends for colorectal cAnCer deteCtion (BLOODTRACC): external validation of dynamic clinical prediction models for early detection of colorectal cancer in primary care.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. 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
backgroundColorectal cancer has low survival rates when diagnosed late-stage. We previously developed sex-specific dynamic risk prediction models utilising trends in the full blood count (FBC), a blood test commonly performed in primary care, to support early detection. We aimed to externally validate these prediction models.
methodsWe performed a cohort study of patients with at least one haemoglobin, mean cell volume, and platelet test. Patients were aged at least 40 years at their current test and had no history of colorectal cancer. The models included age (years) at current test and simultaneous trends over historical tests measured over five years before the current test to inform two-year risk of colorectal cancer diagnosis. Performance measures included the c-statistic and calibration slope.
resultsWe included 2,956,977 males and 3,561,349 females, with 0.4% (n = 12,578) and 0.3% (n = 11,939) diagnosed with colorectal cancer, respectively. The c-statistic (95% CI) was 0.73 (0.72-0.73) for males and 0.74 (0.74-0.75) for females. The calibration slope (95% CI) was 0.92 (0.89-0.94) for males and 0.95 (0.93-0.98) for females. Calibration was good in subgroups of patient data, except under-predicted risk in those aged 70 + years, White individuals, and those with higher IMD. The c-statistic (95% CI) was similar regardless of the number of repeat tests used to define trend and increased as the longitudinal trend window increased until around 2.5-3.0 years for men (0.73 (0.71-0.74)) and 3.0-3.5 years for women (0.73 (0.72-0.75)) and decreased with increasing longitudinal windows thereafter.
conclusionUtilising temporal changes in the commonly performed FBC test could enhance risk stratification for colorectal cancer in primary care. Further research may highlight approaches for improving predictive performance further.
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.