↓ Skip to main content

A colorectal cancer prediction model using traditional and genetic risk scores in Koreans

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomic Data, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
33 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.
Title
A colorectal cancer prediction model using traditional and genetic risk scores in Koreans
Published in
BMC Genomic Data, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12863-015-0207-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keum Ji Jung, Daeyoun Won, Christina Jeon, Soriul Kim, Tae Il Kim, Sun Ha Jee, Terri H Beaty

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies have identified numerous single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk in populations of European descent. However, their utility for predicting risk to CRC in Asians remains unknown. A case-cohort study (random sub-cohort N = 1,685) from the Korean Cancer Prevention Study-II (KCPS-II) (N = 145,842) was used. Twenty-three SNPs identified in previous 47 studies were genotyped on the KCPS-II sub-cohort members. A genetic risk score (GRS) was calculated by summing the number of risk alleles over all SNPs. Prediction models with or without GRS were evaluated in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the continuous net reclassification index (NRI). Seven of 23 SNPs showed significant association with CRC and rectal cancer in Koreans, but not with colon cancer alone. AUROCs (95% CI) for traditional risk score (TRS) alone and TRS plus GRS were 0.73 (0.69-0.78) and 0.74 (0.70-0.78) for CRC, and 0.71 (0.65-0.77) and 0.74 (0.68-0.79) for rectal cancer, respectively. The NRI (95% CI) for a prediction model with GRS compared to the model with TRS alone was 0.17 (-0.05-0.37) for CRC and 0.41 (0.10-0.68) for rectal cancer alone. Our results indicate genetic variants may be useful for predicting risk to CRC in the Koreans, especially risk for rectal cancer alone. Moreover, this study suggests effective prediction models for colon and rectal cancer should be developed separately.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 33%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Engineering 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 October 2015.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomic Data
#605
of 1,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,253
of 278,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomic Data
#18
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,204 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 278,746 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.