↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
35 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
3 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
257 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Determining Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Starting Age of Screening Based on Lifestyle, Environmental, and Genetic Factors
Published in
Gastroenterology, February 2018
DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.02.021
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Guidelines for initiating colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are based on family history but do not consider lifestyle, environmental, or genetic risk factors. We developed models to determine risk of CRC, based on lifestyle and environmental factors and genetic variants, and to identify an optimal age to begin screening. We collected data from 9748 CRC cases and 10,590 controls in the Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium and the Colorectal Transdisciplinary study, from 1992 through 2005. Half of the participants were used to develop the risk determination model and the other half were used to evaluate the discriminatory accuracy (validation set). Models of CRC risk were created based on family history, 19 lifestyle and environmental factors (E-score), and 63 CRC-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms identified in genome-wide association studies (G-score). We evaluated the discriminatory accuracy of the models by calculating area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values, adjusting for study, age, and endoscopy findings for the validation set. We used the models to project the 10-year absolute risk of CRC for a given risk profile and recommend ages to begin screening, in comparison to CRC risk for an average individual at 50 years of age, using external population incidence rates for non-Hispanic whites from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program registry. In our models, E-score and G-score each determined risk of CRC with greater accuracy than family history. A model that combined both scores and family history estimated CRC risk with an AUC value of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.62-0.64) for men and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.61-0.63) for women; AUC values based on only family history ranged from 0.53 to 0.54 and those based only E-score or G-score ranged from 0.59 to 0.60. Although screening is recommended to begin at age 50 years for individuals with no family history of CRC, starting ages calculated based on combined E-score and G-score differed by 12 years for men and 14 for women, for individuals with the highest vs the lowest 10% of risk. We used data from 2 large international consortia to develop CRC risk calculation models that included genetic and environmental factors along with family history. These determine risk of CRC and starting ages for screening with greater accuracy than the family history only model, which is based on the current screening guideline. These scoring systems might serve as a first step toward developing individualized CRC prevention strategies.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 257 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 257 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 12%
Student > Bachelor 28 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 10%
Researcher 25 10%
Other 15 6%
Other 42 16%
Unknown 90 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 2%
Other 23 9%
Unknown 99 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 74. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 July 2024.
All research outputs
#661,357
of 28,815,917 outputs
Outputs from Gastroenterology
#577
of 14,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,346
of 350,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gastroenterology
#6
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,815,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 350,277 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.