Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026
Validation of a Digital Platform for Colorectal Cancer Risk Stratification and Personalized Screening Recommendations.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Casas María A, Navar Sofía M, Schlottmann Francisco, Steinberg Leandro, Pedreira Silvia C, Laporte Mariano, Rotholtz Nicolás A, Pereyra Lisandro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable through risk-adapted screening, yet participation remains below recommended targets. Digital platforms may help bridge this gap by identifying at-risk individuals and facilitating timely preventive evaluation. We aimed to validate the accuracy of ChequeáTuColon (CTC), a digital tool designed to stratify CRC risk, detect alarm symptoms, and provide personalized guideline-based screening recommendations.
METHODS: We conducted a validation study using data from individuals who completed the CTC digital assessment during a CRC awareness campaign at a tertiary care center in March 2026. A random sample was selected for validation. Three expert gastroenterologists, blinded to CTC outputs, independently reviewed participant data and assigned risk categories and screening recommendations. We evaluated concordance across four domains: alarm symptom detection, risk stratification, indication for genetic evaluation, and recommended screening initiation age.
RESULTS: Of 35758 individuals who completed the assessment, 395 were randomly selected for validation (median age 59 years; range 23-83). Overall, 50.4% were classified as average risk, 19.5% as increased risk, and 4.8% as high risk; 20.3% reported alarm symptoms. Among asymptomatic average-risk individuals, 20% were overdue for screening (mean delay 9.5 years), compared to 45% among increased- and high-risk individuals (mean delay 22 years). CTC demonstrated complete agreement with expert adjudication across all domains (100%; κ=1.000).
CONCLUSIONS: CTC achieved perfect concordance with expert guideline-based recommendations. The platform also identified substantial screening delays, particularly among higher-risk individuals, which highlights a potential role for digital tools in supporting guideline-based screening implementation. Further evaluation of patients' experience and downstream screening completion are still needed to evaluate its impact in clinical practice.
METHODS: We conducted a validation study using data from individuals who completed the CTC digital assessment during a CRC awareness campaign at a tertiary care center in March 2026. A random sample was selected for validation. Three expert gastroenterologists, blinded to CTC outputs, independently reviewed participant data and assigned risk categories and screening recommendations. We evaluated concordance across four domains: alarm symptom detection, risk stratification, indication for genetic evaluation, and recommended screening initiation age.
RESULTS: Of 35758 individuals who completed the assessment, 395 were randomly selected for validation (median age 59 years; range 23-83). Overall, 50.4% were classified as average risk, 19.5% as increased risk, and 4.8% as high risk; 20.3% reported alarm symptoms. Among asymptomatic average-risk individuals, 20% were overdue for screening (mean delay 9.5 years), compared to 45% among increased- and high-risk individuals (mean delay 22 years). CTC demonstrated complete agreement with expert adjudication across all domains (100%; κ=1.000).
CONCLUSIONS: CTC achieved perfect concordance with expert guideline-based recommendations. The platform also identified substantial screening delays, particularly among higher-risk individuals, which highlights a potential role for digital tools in supporting guideline-based screening implementation. Further evaluation of patients' experience and downstream screening completion are still needed to evaluate its impact in clinical practice.