↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Validation of a risk prediction model for Barrett’s esophagus in an Australian population

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Validation of a risk prediction model for Barrett’s esophagus in an Australian population
Published in
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, March 2018
DOI 10.2147/ceg.s158627
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colin J Ireland, Andrea L Gordon, Sarah K Thompson, David I Watson, David C Whiteman, Richard L Reed, Adrian Esterman

Abstract

Esophageal adenocarcinoma is a disease that has a high mortality rate, the only known precursor being Barrett's esophagus (BE). While screening for BE is not cost-effective at the population level, targeted screening might be beneficial. We have developed a risk prediction model to identify people with BE, and here we present the external validation of this model. A cohort study was undertaken to validate a risk prediction model for BE. Individuals with endoscopy and histopathology proven BE completed a questionnaire containing variables previously identified as risk factors for this condition. Their responses were combined with data from a population sample for analysis. Risk scores were derived for each participant. Overall performance of the risk prediction model in terms of calibration and discrimination was assessed. Scores from 95 individuals with BE and 636 individuals from the general population were analyzed. The Brier score was 0.118, suggesting reasonable overall performance. The area under the receiver operating characteristic was 0.83 (95% CI 0.78-0.87). The Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic was p=0.14. Minimizing false positives and false negatives, the model achieved a sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 73%. This study has validated a risk prediction model for BE that has a higher sensitivity than previous models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Student > Bachelor 2 18%
Professor 1 9%
Researcher 1 9%
Unknown 5 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 27%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 9%
Psychology 1 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Unknown 5 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 September 2018.
All research outputs
#18,604,390
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#223
of 308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,556
of 331,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 331,175 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.