% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Peng:144699,
      author       = {L. Peng$^*$ and Y. Balavarca$^*$ and K. Weigl$^*$ and M.
                      Hoffmeister$^*$ and H. Brenner$^*$},
      title        = {{H}ead-to-{H}ead {C}omparison of the {P}erformance of 17
                      {R}isk {M}odels for {P}redicting {P}resence of {A}dvanced
                      {N}eoplasms in {C}olorectal {C}ancer {S}creening.},
      journal      = {The American journal of gastroenterology},
      volume       = {114},
      number       = {9},
      issn         = {0002-9270},
      address      = {London [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Nature},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2019-02141},
      pages        = {1520-1530},
      year         = {2019},
      abstract     = {Many risk scores have been proposed to predict presence of
                      advanced colorectal neoplasms, but a comprehensive
                      comparison conducted in the same population is sparse. The
                      aim of this study was to evaluate and directly compare the
                      diagnostic performance of published risk prediction models
                      for advanced colorectal neoplasms.Data were drawn from 2
                      cohorts of subjects undergoing screening colonoscopy in
                      Germany, i.e., KolosSal (n = 16,195) and BliTz (n = 7,444).
                      Absolute risks and relative risks were generated for the
                      presence of at least 1 advanced neoplasm, taking the lowest
                      risk group as the reference group. Performance of risk
                      models was assessed by the area under the receiver operating
                      characteristic curve (AUC) and compared by the net
                      reclassification improvement.The 2 cohorts included 1,917
                      $(11.8\%)$ and 848 $(11.4\%)$ participants with advanced
                      neoplasm, respectively. Absolute risks were mostly between
                      $5\%$ and $10\%$ among participants in the lowest risk group
                      and between $15\%$ and $20\%$ among participants in the
                      highest risk group, and relative risks mostly ranged from
                      2.0 to 4.0 across the risk models in both cohorts. The AUCs
                      ranged from 0.58 to 0.65 in KolosSal and from 0.57 to 0.61
                      in BliTz for all risk scores. Compared to models with lower
                      AUC, classification was significantly improved in most
                      models with higher AUC.Risk models for advanced colorectal
                      neoplasms generally yielded modest discriminatory power,
                      despite some variation in performance between models. Future
                      studies should evaluate the performance of these risk models
                      in racially diverse populations and investigate possible
                      extensions, such as combination with polygenic risk scores.},
      cin          = {C070 / C120 / L101},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)C070-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)C120-20160331 /
                      I:(DE-He78)L101-20160331},
      pnm          = {313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:31464746},
      doi          = {10.14309/ajg.0000000000000370},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/144699},
}