The DOI matches its Crossref record; 124 of the 127 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; 10 of the 155 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Early detection of pancreatic cancer
Open accessAbstract
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is most frequently detected at an advanced stage. Such late detection restricts treatment options and contributes to a dismal 5-year survival rate of 3–15%. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is relatively uncommon and screening of the asymptomatic adult population is not feasible or recommended with current modalities. However, screening of individuals in high-risk groups is recommended. Here, we review groups at high risk for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, including individuals with inherited predisposition and patients with pancreatic cystic lesions. We discuss studies aimed at finding ways of identifying pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in high-risk groups, such as among individuals with new-onset diabetes mellitus and people attending primary and secondary care practices with symptoms that suggest this cancer. We review early detection biomarkers, explore the potential of using social media for detection, appraise prediction models developed using electronic health records and research data, and examine the application of artificial intelligence to medical imaging for the purposes of early detection.
Verified 2026-10-06 · 1 reference not checked yet
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
88 Not checked yet · 29 Own interpretation · 3 Partly supported · 2 Mixed support · 2 Sources not found · 1 Couldn’t confirm · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“25% of patients who have a presumed mucinous cystic lesion removed are ultimately found to have a cyst with no malignant potential,39”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > High-risk groups > Cystic lesions
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [39] Valsangkar NP, Morales-Oyarvide V, Thayer SP, 851 resected cystic tumors of the pancreas: a 33-year experience at the Massachusetts General Hospital. Surgery 2012; 152 (suppl 1): S4– 12. 22770958 PMC3806101 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Demographic characteristics; page unavailable) give final diagnoses among all 851 resected cysts, not outcomes for patients whose lesions were presumed mucinous before surgery. The Discussion (page unavailable) addresses malignancy and dysplasia but gives no 25% figure for cysts with no malignant potential. Searches for preoperative mucinous diagnoses and that percentage found no comparison that verifies the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“and exocrine insufficiency appears to be a contributing cause.116”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Advances in artificial intelligence and deep learning methodologies in relation to early detection > Deep learning methodologies applied to abdominal imaging
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [116] Danai LV, Babic A, Rosenthal MH, Altered exocrine function can drive adipose wasting in early pancreatic cancer. Nature 2018; 558: 600– 04. 29925948 PMC6112987 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper reports that decreased exocrine function contributes to adipose-tissue wasting in PDAC mouse models (Abstract), supporting a contribution to weight loss. It explicitly says whether this mechanism contributes to wasting in patients requires further study, and enzyme replacement did not significantly affect muscle loss; the broader claim about weight loss in PDAC is therefore not fully established. (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
In the paper
“Similarly, incidentally diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ie, discovered serendipitously while screening or checking for other diseases) is associated with longer median survival than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma that is diagnosed when patients have symptoms.8”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Poruk KE, Firpo MA, Adler DG, Mulvihill SJ. Screening for pancreatic cancer: why, how, and who? Ann Surg 2013; 257: 17– 26. 22895395 PMC4113008 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Patients diagnosed with stage 1 disease experience longer survival times than patients diagnosed with disease at more advanced stages.8”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Poruk KE, Firpo MA, Adler DG, Mulvihill SJ. Screening for pancreatic cancer: why, how, and who? Ann Surg 2013; 257: 17– 26. 22895395 PMC4113008 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, up to 85% of patients have cancers that are not surgically resectable when identified, and over half of patients in the UK are diagnosed following a non-specific disease course leading to an emergency hospital admission.10–13”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Keane MG, Horsfall L, Rait G, Pereira SP. A case-control study comparing the incidence of early symptoms in pancreatic and biliary tract cancer. BMJ Open 2014; 4: e005720. PMC4244441 25410605 source
- Not checked yetcites [11] Zhou Y, Abel GA, Hamilton W, Diagnosis of cancer as an emergency: a critical review of current evidence. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2017; 14: 45– 56. 27725680 source
- Not checked yetcites [12] Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Identifying patients with suspected pancreatic cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br J Gen Pract 2012; 62: e38– 45. 22520674 PMC3252538 source
- Not checked yetcites [13] Stapley S, Peters TJ, Neal RD, Rose PW, Walter FM, Hamilton W. The risk of pancreatic cancer in symptomatic patients in primary care: a large case-control study using electronic records. Br J Cancer 2012; 106: 1940– 44. 22617126 PMC3388562 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“a dismal 5-year survival rate of 3–15%”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“the 5-year survival rates remain as low as 3–15%.3,4”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 394– 424. 30207593
- Not checked yetcites [4] Arnold M, Rutherford MJ, Bardot A, Progress in cancer survival, mortality, and incidence in seven high-income countries 1995–2014 (ICBP SURVMARK-2): a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20: 1493– 505. 31521509 PMC6838671 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“over half of patients in the UK are diagnosed following a non-specific disease course leading to an emergency hospital admission.10–13”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Keane MG, Horsfall L, Rait G, Pereira SP. A case-control study comparing the incidence of early symptoms in pancreatic and biliary tract cancer. BMJ Open 2014; 4: e005720. PMC4244441 25410605 source
- Not checked yetcites [11] Zhou Y, Abel GA, Hamilton W, Diagnosis of cancer as an emergency: a critical review of current evidence. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2017; 14: 45– 56. 27725680 source
- Not checked yetcites [12] Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Identifying patients with suspected pancreatic cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br J Gen Pract 2012; 62: e38– 45. 22520674 PMC3252538 source
- Not checked yetcites [13] Stapley S, Peters TJ, Neal RD, Rose PW, Walter FM, Hamilton W. The risk of pancreatic cancer in symptomatic patients in primary care: a large case-control study using electronic records. Br J Cancer 2012; 106: 1940– 44. 22617126 PMC3388562 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Survival rates are also substantially better for patients diagnosed at an operable rather than an inoperable stage.9”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Neoptolemos JP, Kleeff J, Michl P, Costello E, Greenhalf W, Palmer DH. Therapeutic developments in pancreatic cancer: current and future perspectives. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 15: 333– 48. 29717230 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This spectrum seems to be similar in families affected by HBOC, whether or not they have an increased incidence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.34”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > High-risk groups > Familial or inherited risk
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] Rebbeck TR, Friebel TM, Friedman E, Mutational spectrum in a worldwide study of 29 700 families with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Hum Mutat 2018; 39: 593– 620. 29446198 PMC5903938
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The low disease prevalence makes screening of the asymptomatic adult population unfeasible.”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
- It may state two separate claims as one. 32
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Guidelines recommend immediate surgical resection for any lesion with high-risk stigmata, and regular surveillance with interval imaging (MRI or endoscopic ultrasound) for all mucinous or indeterminate lesions.21,60”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Practicalities of screening > How should individuals be screened?
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [21] Vege SS, Ziring B, Jain R, Moayyedi P, Clinical Guidelines Committee, American Gastroenterology Association. American gastroenterological association institute guideline on the diagnosis and management of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts. Gastroenterology 2015; 148: 819– 22; quize12–3. 25805375 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “When Can Pancreatic Cyst Surveillance Be Discontinued?” (page not supplied), the AGA conditionally suggests surgery for specified combinations of concerning features—not immediate resection of any lesion with a high-risk feature. In “Issues Related to the Conduct of Surveillance” (page not supplied), it recommends interval MRI for selected cysts; it also advises stopping surveillance after five unchanged years or when a patient is no longer a surgical candidate. These recommendations contradict the claim’s categorical surgery and surveillance rules. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Partly supportedcites [60] European Study Group on Cystic Tumours of the Pancreas. European evidence-based guidelines on pancreatic cystic neoplasms. Gut 2018; 67: 789– 804. 29574408 PMC5890653 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The IPMN recommendations (§4.11) identify features that are absolute indications for surgery, while §§4.2 and 5.3 recommend interval follow-up for IPMN and MCN that are not resected. Section 7.2 also recommends surveillance for undefined cysts without malignancy risk factors. The claim overgeneralizes these conditional recommendations: the guidelines do not call for immediate resection of any pancreatic lesion with high-risk features or surveillance of all mucinous and indeterminate lesions. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Disputed
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Surveillance protocols vary between the different guidelines, but typically recommend cross-sectional imaging once every 6 months in the first year, and annually thereafter if no changes are detected.”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Practicalities of screening > How should individuals be screened?
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [21] Vege SS, Ziring B, Jain R, Moayyedi P, Clinical Guidelines Committee, American Gastroenterology Association. American gastroenterological association institute guideline on the diagnosis and management of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts. Gastroenterology 2015; 148: 819– 22; quize12–3. 25805375 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Issues Related to the Conduct of Surveillance,” recommendation 2 calls for MRI after 1 year and then every 2 years if the cyst remains unchanged—not imaging every 6 months in the first year and annually thereafter. The Summary also describes the AGA’s 2-year interval as less frequent than previously published guidelines; it does not establish the claimed schedule as typical. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Supportedcites [60] European Study Group on Cystic Tumours of the Pancreas. European evidence-based guidelines on pancreatic cystic neoplasms. Gut 2018; 67: 789– 804. 29574408 PMC5890653 source
The Recommendations for IPMN (section 4.2) call for follow-up at 6 months in the first year and yearly thereafter when no surgical risk factors are present. The MCN recommendations (section 5.3) give the same schedule if no changes are observed, and the Radiology recommendations (section 2) prefer MRI for follow-up. The guideline also specifies different schedules for some cysts, consistent with the citing sentence’s qualification that protocols vary. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, by combining these factors through cancer decision support tools, the 5% risk threshold can be reached in some individuals, defining a further group suitable for screening.10,12,13”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Practicalities of screening > Who should be screened?
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [10] Keane MG, Horsfall L, Rait G, Pereira SP. A case-control study comparing the incidence of early symptoms in pancreatic and biliary tract cancer. BMJ Open 2014; 4: e005720. PMC4244441 25410605 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion supports developing decision support tools that combine multiple early alarm symptoms and mentions thresholds for investigation. It does not state that combining factors brings some individuals to a 5% risk threshold or defines a group suitable for screening. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Partly supportedcites [12] Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Identifying patients with suspected pancreatic cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br J Gen Pract 2012; 62: e38– 45. 22520674 PMC3252538 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Box 1 gives examples in which the algorithm combines risk factors and symptoms to estimate individual pancreatic-cancer risks of 10.2% and 11.3%, above the claimed 5% threshold. But the ‘Individual risk assessment and thresholds’ section proposes further investigation or clinical assessment, not a 5% screening threshold; ‘How this fits in’ says there is no reliable screening test. The claim’s screening-suitability conclusion is therefore not supported by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Partly supportedcites [13] Stapley S, Peters TJ, Neal RD, Rose PW, Walter FM, Hamilton W. The risk of pancreatic cancer in symptomatic patients in primary care: a large case-control study using electronic records. Br J Cancer 2012; 106: 1940– 44. 22617126 PMC3388562 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (page unavailable) report that some symptom combinations in patients aged 60 or older had pancreatic-cancer predictive values above 10%, supporting the point that combined factors can exceed 5% risk in some patients. But the paper does not establish a 5% screening threshold or show that a cancer decision support tool identifies a group suitable for screening. Its Discussion recommends considering symptomatic patients for further investigation instead. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, studies underway in the USA61 and UK62 are actively investigating how best to detect pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in individuals with new-onset diabetes.”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Practicalities of screening > How should individuals be screened?
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [61] Maitra A, Sharma A, Brand RE, A prospective study to establish a new-onset diabetes cohort: from the consortium for the study of chronic pancreatitis, diabetes, and pancreatic cancer. Pancreas 2018; 47: 1244– 48. 30325864 PMC6432934 source
The citation to this paper is attached to the US study, not the separately cited UK study. The Abstract describes a US-initiated new-onset diabetes cohort, and the Specific Aims describe validating biomarkers for occult pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and developing an early-detection screening protocol. The copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not matchedcites [62] UK Early Detection Initiative, Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, Cancer Research UK. UK early detection initiative for pancreatic cancer. www.uk-edi.co.uk (accessed Sept 17, 2019).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
In the paper
“Screening individuals in high-risk groups increases the rate of detection and reduces false-positive results.8”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Poruk KE, Firpo MA, Adler DG, Mulvihill SJ. Screening for pancreatic cancer: why, how, and who? Ann Surg 2013; 257: 17– 26. 22895395 PMC4113008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Here, we review groups at high risk for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, including individuals with inherited predisposition and patients with pancreatic cystic lesions.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“Several groups at high risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma have been identified, including individuals in families with an inherited risk,17,18 people with cystic lesions of the pancreas,19–21 and people older than 50 years, newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.22,23”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Petersen GM. Familial pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2015; 29: 641– 53. 26226902 PMC4522044 source
- Not checked yetcites [18] Canto MI, Almario JA, Schulick RD, Risk of neoplastic progression in individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer undergoing long-term surveillance. Gastroenterology 2018; 155: 740– 51.e2. 29803839 PMC6120797 source
- Not checked yetcites [19] Kimura W, Moriya T, Hirai I, Multicenter study of serous cystic neoplasm of the Japan pancreas society. Pancreas 2012; 41: 380– 87. 22415666 source
- Not checked yetcites [20] Del Chiaro M, Verbeke C, Salvia R, European experts consensus statement on cystic tumours of the pancreas. Dig Liver Dis 2013; 45: 703– 11. 23415799 source
- Not checked yetcites [21] Vege SS, Ziring B, Jain R, Moayyedi P, Clinical Guidelines Committee, American Gastroenterology Association. American gastroenterological association institute guideline on the diagnosis and management of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts. Gastroenterology 2015; 148: 819– 22; quize12–3. 25805375 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
In the paper
“Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is most frequently detected at an advanced stage. Such late detection restricts treatment options and contributes to a dismal 5-year survival rate of 3–15%.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“These dismal figures are attributed to late-stage and incurable-stage diagnosis as well as high tumour chemoresistance.5”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Kamisawa T, Wood LD, Itoi T, Takaori K. Pancreatic cancer. Lancet 2016; 388: 73– 85. 26830752 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
In the paper
“Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is relatively uncommon and screening of the asymptomatic adult population is not feasible or recommended with current modalities.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“The low disease prevalence makes screening of the asymptomatic adult population unfeasible. Existing diagnostic methods would incur unacceptably high rates of false-positive findings,16”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] Hart PA, Chari ST. Is screening for pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals one step closer or a fool’s errand? Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 36– 38. 30268560 PMC6557281 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, screening of individuals in high-risk groups is recommended.”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“There is increasing knowledge about the progression of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms from a genetic perspective, which suggests that early lesions are heterogeneous, whereas lesions with high-grade dysplasia have a smaller number of homogeneous driver genes.42”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > High-risk groups > Cystic lesions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [42] Fischer CG, Beleva Guthrie V, Braxton AM, Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms arise from multiple independent clones, each with distinct mutations. Gastroenterology 2019; 157: 1123– 37.e22. 31175866 PMC6756950
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“familial pancreatic cancer is a syndrome that is defined as having multiple first-degree relatives with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, exclusive of other cancer syndromes.36”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > High-risk groups > Familial or inherited risk
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] Grocock CJ, Vitone LJ, Harcus MJ, Neoptolemos JP, Raraty MG, Greenhalf W. Familial pancreatic cancer: a review and latest advances. Adv Med Sci 2007; 52: 37– 49. 18217388
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“It is estimated that a cyst seen incidentally on MRI has a 10 in 100 000 chance of being a mucinous invasive malignancy, and a 17 in 100 000 chance of being a ductal cancer.21”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > High-risk groups > Cystic lesions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Vege SS, Ziring B, Jain R, Moayyedi P, Clinical Guidelines Committee, American Gastroenterology Association. American gastroenterological association institute guideline on the diagnosis and management of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts. Gastroenterology 2015; 148: 819– 22; quize12–3. 25805375 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Some families affected by BRCA2 mutations have an increased incidence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and breast or ovarian cancer. These families are classified as having both HBOC and hereditary pancreatic cancer.33”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > High-risk groups > Familial or inherited risk
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Iqbal J, Ragone A, Lubinski J, The incidence of pancreatic cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Br J Cancer 2012; 107: 2005– 09. 23099806 PMC3516682 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the absence of autosomal dominance, risk for an individual might be high, but such a risk is difficult or impossible to prospectively predict.”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > High-risk groups > Familial or inherited risk
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A study of 862 individuals undergoing surgery for pancreatic cysts found that a combined molecular and clinical marker panel was more accurate than current clinical features alone for classifying patients who required surgery, or routine monitoring, or did not require surveillance; use of these combined markers would have decreased the number of unnecessary operations by 60% compared with the use”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > High-risk groups > Cystic lesions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [41] Springer S, Masica DL, Dal Molin M, A multimodality test to guide the management of patients with a pancreatic cyst. Sci Transl Med 2019; 11: eaav4772. 31316009 PMC7859881 source
hedgeddirectn = 862- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“with an incidence of 8–12 per 100 000 per year and a 1·3% lifetime risk of developing the disease.3”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 394– 424. 30207593
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This target includes individuals with at least two first-degree relatives with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, patients with hereditary pancreatitis or particular genetic syndromes (eg, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, or germline mutations in the CDKN2A, BRCA2, or PALB2),6,54 and individuals with mucinous cystic lesions of the pancreas.19–21”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Practicalities of screening > Who should be screened?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Canto MI, Harinck F, Hruban RH, International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium summit on the management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer. Gut 2013; 62: 339– 47. 23135763 PMC3585492 source
- Not checked yetcites [54] Kenner BJ, Chari ST, Cleeter DF, Go VL. Early detection of sporadic pancreatic cancer: strategic map for innovation—a white paper. Pancreas 2015; 44: 686– 92. 25938853 PMC4467583 source
- Not checked yetcites [19] Kimura W, Moriya T, Hirai I, Multicenter study of serous cystic neoplasm of the Japan pancreas society. Pancreas 2012; 41: 380– 87. 22415666 source
- Not checked yetcites [20] Del Chiaro M, Verbeke C, Salvia R, European experts consensus statement on cystic tumours of the pancreas. Dig Liver Dis 2013; 45: 703– 11. 23415799 source
- Not checked yetcites [21] Vege SS, Ziring B, Jain R, Moayyedi P, Clinical Guidelines Committee, American Gastroenterology Association. American gastroenterological association institute guideline on the diagnosis and management of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts. Gastroenterology 2015; 148: 819– 22; quize12–3. 25805375 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, international guidelines and a white paper on the early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma recommend targeted screening of individuals whose lifetime risk of developing pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is higher than 5% (figure 1).6,54”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Practicalities of screening > Who should be screened?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Canto MI, Harinck F, Hruban RH, International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium summit on the management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer. Gut 2013; 62: 339– 47. 23135763 PMC3585492 source
- Not checked yetcites [54] Kenner BJ, Chari ST, Cleeter DF, Go VL. Early detection of sporadic pancreatic cancer: strategic map for innovation—a white paper. Pancreas 2015; 44: 686– 92. 25938853 PMC4467583 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Other high-risk groups have been identified, such as individuals with new-onset diabetes (as discussed above), modifiable risk factors (eg, smoking, obesity), non-modifiable risk factors (eg, age), specific comorbidities (eg, obesity, chronic pancreatitis), or early symptoms (some of which are present for more than 1 year before diagnosis).10,12,13,56”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Practicalities of screening > Who should be screened?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Keane MG, Horsfall L, Rait G, Pereira SP. A case-control study comparing the incidence of early symptoms in pancreatic and biliary tract cancer. BMJ Open 2014; 4: e005720. PMC4244441 25410605 source
- Not checked yetcites [12] Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Identifying patients with suspected pancreatic cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br J Gen Pract 2012; 62: e38– 45. 22520674 PMC3252538 source
- Not checked yetcites [13] Stapley S, Peters TJ, Neal RD, Rose PW, Walter FM, Hamilton W. The risk of pancreatic cancer in symptomatic patients in primary care: a large case-control study using electronic records. Br J Cancer 2012; 106: 1940– 44. 22617126 PMC3388562 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The US Preventive Services Task Force and other guidelines recommend against screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in asymptomatic adults at average risk.6,53,54”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Practicalities of screening > Who should be screened?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Canto MI, Harinck F, Hruban RH, International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium summit on the management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer. Gut 2013; 62: 339– 47. 23135763 PMC3585492 source
- Not checked yetcites [53] Owens DK, Davidson KW, Krist AH, Screening for pancreatic cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Reaffirmation Recommendation Statement. JAMA 2019; 322: 438– 44. 31386141 source
- Not checked yetcites [54] Kenner BJ, Chari ST, Cleeter DF, Go VL. Early detection of sporadic pancreatic cancer: strategic map for innovation—a white paper. Pancreas 2015; 44: 686– 92. 25938853 PMC4467583 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Established screening programmes exist, including the pan-European EUROPAC registry,36 North American National Familial Pancreatic Tumor Registry,57 and the German National Case Collection for familial pancreatic cancer.58”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Practicalities of screening > How should individuals be screened?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] Grocock CJ, Vitone LJ, Harcus MJ, Neoptolemos JP, Raraty MG, Greenhalf W. Familial pancreatic cancer: a review and latest advances. Adv Med Sci 2007; 52: 37– 49. 18217388
- Not checked yetcites [57] Hruban RH, Petersen GM, Goggins M, Familial pancreatic cancer. Ann Oncol 1999; 10 (suppl 4): 69– 73. 10436789 source
- Not checked yetcites [58] Schneider R, Slater EP, Sina M, German national case collection for familial pancreatic cancer (FaPaCa): ten years experience. Fam Cancer 2011; 10: 323– 30. 21207249 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Approximately 8% of all pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas are believed to arise from premalignant mucinous cystic lesions of the pancreas.59”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Practicalities of screening > How should individuals be screened?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [59] Le H, Ziogas A, Rhee JM, Lee JG, Lipkin SM, Zell JA. A population-based, descriptive analysis of malignant intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008; 17: 2737– 41. 18843017 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The diabetes experienced by most patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is of recent onset (diagnosed less than 24–36 months before diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma), and is improved by surgical resection of the tumour.48”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > High-risk groups > New-onset diabetes mellitus
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [48] Hart PA, Bellin MD, Andersen DK, Type 3c (pancreatogenic) diabetes mellitus secondary to chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 1: 226– 37. 28404095 PMC5495015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Screening of the general population carries risk, and there is currently no evidence that it reduces mortality or is cost-effective.54,55”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Practicalities of screening > Who should be screened?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [54] Kenner BJ, Chari ST, Cleeter DF, Go VL. Early detection of sporadic pancreatic cancer: strategic map for innovation—a white paper. Pancreas 2015; 44: 686– 92. 25938853 PMC4467583 source
- Not checked yetcites [55] Henrikson NB, Aiello Bowles EJ, Blasi PR, Screening for pancreatic cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA 2019; 322: 445– 54. 31386140 PMC13387050 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This study, which was done within the Swedish health-care system, concluded that biomarker-mediated screening is highly desirable.”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Role for biomarkers in early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma > Challenges and opportunities
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [74] Ghatnekar O, Andersson R, Svensson M, Modelling the benefits of early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer using a biomarker signature. Int J Cancer 2013; 133: 2392– 97. 23649606 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although patients often show symptoms that suggest pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at repeated primary care consultations before diagnosis,12,13,63 they often encounter delays in the workup process.64”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Practicalities of screening > How should individuals be screened?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Identifying patients with suspected pancreatic cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br J Gen Pract 2012; 62: e38– 45. 22520674 PMC3252538 source
- Not checked yetcites [13] Stapley S, Peters TJ, Neal RD, Rose PW, Walter FM, Hamilton W. The risk of pancreatic cancer in symptomatic patients in primary care: a large case-control study using electronic records. Br J Cancer 2012; 106: 1940– 44. 22617126 PMC3388562 source
- Not checked yetcites [63] Lyratzopoulos G, Neal RD, Barbiere JM, Rubin GP, Abel GA. Variation in number of general practitioner consultations before hospital referral for cancer: findings from the 2010 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey in England. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 353– 65. 22365494 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In 2013, cancer decision support tools were incorporated into software systems of general practitioner practices in the UK.12”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Practicalities of screening > How should individuals be screened?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Identifying patients with suspected pancreatic cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm. Br J Gen Pract 2012; 62: e38– 45. 22520674 PMC3252538 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Biomarkers could play an important role in early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma by enriching for individuals in high-risk groups who have the highest chance of a cancer diagnosis, thereby helping clinicians prioritise individuals for screening (figure 2).”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Role for biomarkers in early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma > Challenges and opportunities
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because signals from normal tissues are reduced or eliminated, the signals can be engineered to be highly specific for cancer, and the method can be tailored for highly sensitive detection tools.”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Role for biomarkers in early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma > Synthetic biomarkers
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“More frequent surveillance is advocated for larger lesions or lesions with worrisome features.21,60”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Practicalities of screening > How should individuals be screened?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Vege SS, Ziring B, Jain R, Moayyedi P, Clinical Guidelines Committee, American Gastroenterology Association. American gastroenterological association institute guideline on the diagnosis and management of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts. Gastroenterology 2015; 148: 819– 22; quize12–3. 25805375 source
- Not checked yetcites [60] European Study Group on Cystic Tumours of the Pancreas. European evidence-based guidelines on pancreatic cystic neoplasms. Gut 2018; 67: 789– 804. 29574408 PMC5890653 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Moreover, the use of high-risk groups as controls and combining molecular markers with clinical features is an important consideration when identifying biomarkers capable of selecting populations at highest risk of development of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma for screening.75”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Role for biomarkers in early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma > Current promising biomarkers for early detection
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [75] Springer S, Wang Y, Dal Molin M, A combination of molecular markers and clinical features improve the classification of pancreatic cysts. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 1501– 10. 26253305 PMC4782782 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Research into the molecular changes occurring during the sequential progression from lesion, through early-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and finally to advanced disease is generating a greater understanding of development and progression of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This understanding is providing a basis for designing rational strategies to develop biomarkers for early detection”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Role for biomarkers in early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma > Current promising biomarkers for early detection
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, single biomarkers will probably not have high sensitivity for detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and robust panels of biomarkers will be required.”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Role for biomarkers in early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma > Challenges and opportunities
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The usefulness and outcomes of the current programme are subject to ongoing assessment via the Accelerate, Coordinate, Evaluate Programme, an initiative supported by Cancer Research UK and Macmillan Cancer Support.65”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Practicalities of screening > How should individuals be screened?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [65] Cancer Research UK. Accelerate, Coordinate, Evaluate (ACE) programme. 2019 https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/diagnosis/accelerate-coordinate-evaluate-ace-programme/multidisciplinary-diagnostic-centres-mdcs (accessed Sept 2, 2019).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although large population-based cohorts that have recruited healthy individuals (such as UKCTOCS72 and EPIC73) contain patient samples that precede diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, crucial information—such as family history and comorbidity data, including the presence of chronic pancreatitis or diabetes—are not consistently available.”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Role for biomarkers in early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma > Challenges and opportunities
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [72] Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A, Recruitment to multicentre trials—lessons from UKCTOCS: descriptive study. BMJ 2008; 337: a2079. 19008269 PMC2583394 source
- Not checked yetcites [73] Riboli E, Hunt KJ, Slimani N, European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC): study populations and data collection. Public Health Nutr 2002; 5: 1113– 24. 12639222 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A small pilot study suggested that pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma-associated diabetes might be distinguished from the more prevalent type 2 diabetes by a blunted pancreatic polypeptide response to a mixed meal.94”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Ongoing trials and studies for early detection
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [94] Hart PA, Baichoo E, Bi Y, Hinton A, Kudva YC, Chari ST. Pancreatic polypeptide response to a mixed meal is blunted in pancreatic head cancer associated with diabetes mellitus. Pancreatology 2015; 15: 162– 66. 25766398 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This model reached an AUC of 0·85 and incorporated data on age, sex, race and ethnicity, diabetes, emphysema, asthma, stroke, cardiovascular diseases, ulcers, other cancer, hypertension, smoking status, physical activity, alcohol consumption, and family history of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Advances in artificial intelligence and deep learning methodologies in relation to early detection > Models based on research data
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [109] Muhammad W, Hart GR, Nartowt B, Pancreatic cancer prediction through an artificial neural network. Front Artif Intell 2019; 2: 2. PMC7861334 33733091 source
- Not checked yetcites [110] Klein AP, Lindström S, Mendelsohn JB, An absolute risk model to identify individuals at elevated risk for pancreatic cancer in the general population. PLoS One 2013; 8: e72311. 24058443 PMC3772857 source
- Not checked yetcites [111] Risch HA, Yu H, Lu L, Kidd MS. Detectable symptomatology preceding the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and absolute risk of pancreatic cancer diagnosis. Am J Epidemiol 2015; 182: 26– 34. 26049860 PMC4479115 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other models based on research interviews have not reached similar levels of performance, but have consistently shown that age, sex, smoking, diabetes, family history of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, abdominal symptoms, and blood group point to an increased risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Advances in artificial intelligence and deep learning methodologies in relation to early detection > Models based on research data
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Indeed, sarcopenia and fat loss are known to be part of a wasting syndrome of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and might have prognostic implications.117,118”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Advances in artificial intelligence and deep learning methodologies in relation to early detection > Deep learning methodologies applied to abdominal imaging
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [117] Ozola Zalite I, Zykus R, Francisco Gonzalez M, Influence of cachexia and sarcopenia on survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review. Pancreatology 2015; 15: 19– 24. 25524484 source
- Not checked yetcites [118] Peng P, Hyder O, Firoozmand A, Impact of sarcopenia on outcomes following resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 16: 1478– 86. 22692586 PMC3578313 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A consistent performance characteristic of electronic health record models is high specificity and low sensitivity, leading to high false-negative rates.”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Advances in artificial intelligence and deep learning methodologies in relation to early detection > Models based on electronic health records
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Further models based on insurance claims have been developed, with poor diagnostic performance (AUC 0·73).106,107”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Advances in artificial intelligence and deep learning methodologies in relation to early detection > Models based on electronic health records
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [106] Baecker A, Kim S, Risch HA, Do changes in health reveal the possibility of undiagnosed pancreatic cancer? Development of a risk-prediction model based on healthcare claims data. PLoS One 2019; 14: e0218580. 31237889 PMC6592596 source
- Not checked yetcites [107] Hsieh MH, Sun LM, Lin CL, Hsieh MJ, Hsu CY, Kao CH. Development of a prediction model for pancreatic cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes using logistic regression and artificial neural network models. Cancer Manag Res 2018; 10: 6317– 24. 30568493 PMC6267763 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The same model applied to individuals with pre-diabetes showed lower accuracy (AUC 0·71), but consistent direction of association with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.105”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Advances in artificial intelligence and deep learning methodologies in relation to early detection > Models based on electronic health records
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [105] Boursi B, Finkelman B, Giantonio BJ, A clinical prediction model to assess risk for pancreatic cancer among patients with new-onset diabetes. Gastroenterology 2017; 152: 840– 50.e3. 27923728 PMC5337138 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The non-invasive measurement of different body compartments has already been fully automated and applied to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma through artificial intelligence methodologies, and this application could be easily incorporated into the evaluation of routine diagnostic imaging.119”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Advances in artificial intelligence and deep learning methodologies in relation to early detection > Deep learning methodologies applied to abdominal imaging
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [119] Bridge CP, Rosenthal M, Wright B, Fully-automated analysis of body composition from CT in cancer patients using convolutional neural networks. International workshop on skin image analysis; 10 2, 2018. source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This model performed as well (AUC=0·81) as the UK model,105 but had low positive predictive value (0·3–0·4% risk over 10 years) because it was evaluated in the general unselected population aged 40 years and older.108”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Advances in artificial intelligence and deep learning methodologies in relation to early detection > Models based on electronic health records
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [108] Yu A, Woo SM, Joo J, Development and validation of a prediction model to estimate individual risk of pancreatic cancer. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0146473. 26752291 PMC4708985 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With respect to mucinous cysts, identifying the few individuals with mucinous cystic lesions at the highest risk of progression to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is still a key knowledge gap.”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Summary
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Careful and ethical use of existing data—whether through social media or electronic health records—has the power to facilitate prediction models, whereas artificial intelligence applied to imaging offers the possibility of detecting earlier lesions.”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Summary
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Advances in early detection will go together with improvements in treatment to extend survival for people with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Summary
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Muhammad and colleagues used artificial intelligence to analyse available personal health data to calculate risk for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the general population and to identify high-risk individuals.109”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Advances in artificial intelligence and deep learning methodologies in relation to early detection > Artificial intelligence-assisted CT methods and novel MRI methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [109] Muhammad W, Hart GR, Nartowt B, Pancreatic cancer prediction through an artificial neural network. Front Artif Intell 2019; 2: 2. PMC7861334 33733091 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Roffman and colleagues127 used artificial intelligence to predict non-melanoma skin cancer by using personal health data (eg, sex, race, Hispanic ethnicity, hypertension, heart disease, exercise habits, history of stroke) commonly available in electronic medical record systems.”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Advances in artificial intelligence and deep learning methodologies in relation to early detection > Artificial intelligence-assisted CT methods and novel MRI methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [127] Roffman D, Hart G, Girardi M, Ko CJ, Deng J. Predicting non-melanoma skin cancer via a multi-parameterized artificial neural network. Sci Rep 2018; 8: 1701. 29374196 PMC5786038
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
In some cases, the definitive diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is only possible after surgery, when sufficient tumour material is available for histological diagnosis.
“In some cases, the definitive diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is only possible following surgery (when there is sufficient tumour material to make the histological diagnosis), which carries the risk of substantial morbidity and mortality.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Some hereditary cancer syndromes, including HBOC, Lynch syndrome 2, FAMMM, Peutz-Jegher’s syndrome, and Li-Fraumeni syndrome, are associated with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
“Some hereditary cancer syndromes—including hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), Lynch syndrome 2, familial atypical multiple mole melanoma (FAMMM), Peutz-Jegher’s syndrome, and Li-Fraumeni syndrome—are associated with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Not all pancreatic cystic lesions are intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms or mucinous cystic neoplasms; many have no risk of malignant transformation and do not require surveillance.
“First, not all pancreatic cystic lesions are intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms. Many are cystic lesions with no risk of malignant transformation and thus do not require surveillance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms do not progress to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
“Second, most intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms do not progress to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Currently available clinical tools are imperfect at differentiating benign pancreatic cysts that are safe to discharge, mucinous cystic lesions that harbour high-grade dysplasia or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and require surgical resection, and mucinous cystic lesions with low-grade dysplasia that are safe to watch.
“Currently available clinical tools are imperfect at differentiating between benign cysts that are safe to discharge, mucinous cystic lesions that harbour high-grade dysplasia or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and require surgical resection, and mucinous cystic lesions that have low-grade dysplasia and are safe to watch.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Different types of pancreatic cysts have specific mutational profiles that can be used to identify the type of cyst with a high level of confidence.
“We now know that different types of pancreatic cysts have specific mutational profiles that can be used to identify the type of cysts with a high level of confidence.”
The paper relies on this without support.
People with long-standing type 2 diabetes of more than 5 years have a 1–1.5-fold increased risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma compared with the general population.
“People with long-standing type 2 diabetes (more than 5 years) have a 1–1·5-fold increased risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma compared with the general population.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Individuals with new-onset diabetes are the highest risk group for sporadic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
“and individuals with new-onset diabetes are the highest risk group for sporadic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Approximately 0.8–1% of individuals aged over 50 years with new-onset diabetes have diabetes secondary to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
“Approximately 0·8–1% of individuals aged over 50 years with new-onset diabetes have diabetes secondary to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.”
The paper relies on this without support.
For newly identified high-risk groups such as patients with new-onset diabetes, there are no established guidelines or screening programmes.
“For the newly identified high-risk groups (such as patients with new-onset diabetes), there are no established guidelines or screening programmes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Despite thousands of published papers, no single candidate biomarker has translated to clinical use for the early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
“However, despite thousands of published papers, no single candidate biomarker has translated to clinical use for the early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The low incidence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma makes acquiring the quantity of samples necessary for biomarker development difficult, requiring large national and international collaborations.
“The low incidence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma means that acquiring the quantity of samples necessary for biomarker development is not easy, and large national and international collaborations are required.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Currently, biomarker studies do not account well for the finding that a high proportion of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma have diabetes, so emerging biomarkers could have an association with diabetes rather than with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
“Currently, biomarker studies do not account well for the finding that a high proportion of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma have diabetes;50 thus, emerging biomarkers could have an association with diabetes rather than with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A pronounced deficit in early detection studies for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma has been the absence of bespoke pre-diagnostic cohorts.
“Finally, a pronounced deficit in early detection studies for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma has been the absence of bespoke pre-diagnostic cohorts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
No biomarkers are currently validated for early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
“Currently, there are no biomarkers validated for early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.”
The paper relies on this without support.
CA19-9 is elevated in benign and malignant diseases other than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
“and the marker is increased in other benign and malignant diseases.”
The paper relies on this without support.
CA19-9 is not expressed in people with a Lewis-negative genotype.
“CA19–9 is not expressed in individuals with a Lewis-negative genotype”
The paper relies on this without support.
Onset of diabetes after age 50 is the best available clinical marker for early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
“Onset of diabetes after age 50 was chosen as the best clinical marker available for early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma”
The paper relies on this without support.
Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma first experience subtle, vague symptoms that can precede diagnosis by years.
“Because patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma first experience subtle, vague symptoms that can precede the diagnosis by years”
The paper relies on this without support.
Visual assessment by imaging physicians is qualitative, subjective, and prone to errors and intra-observer and inter-observer variability.
“However, visual assessment by imaging physicians is qualitative, subjective, and prone to errors and intra-observer and inter-observer variabilities.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many distinguishing features of medical images are hidden from human observers.
“More importantly, many distinguishing features of images are hidden from human observers.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, the current PC biomarkers lack sufficient sensitivity and specificity for clinical application 44,161,170.”
From Artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer (2022) · cites this paper as [44]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Of note, the literature addresses the fact that disease controls such as chronic pancreatitis are needed in studies as there are several examples of biomarkers present in both chronic pancreatitis and PDAC.178”
From Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [178]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“For example, chronic pancreatitis especially those who develop diabetes with chronic pancreatitis have the highest proportional risk of developing PDAC.178,179”
From Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [178]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Another risk population are those patients who are increasingly identified with pancreatic cysts.178”
From Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [178]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These prediagnostic CT images provide critical morphological information associated with biological changes at the pre-cancer or early cancer stage, which can be extracted using AI and ML methods to predict PDAC.178”
From Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [178]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Of note, several studies show that the probability PDAC development can be further increased by including additional factors such as weight change, ethnicity, and lifestyle factors that are commonly contained in electronic medical records.171–178”
From Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [178]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“a multitude of circulating tumor-derived analytes (proteins, autoantibodies, metabolites, DNA, non-coding RNAs and extracellular vesicles, among others) have been assessed in the context of PDAC early detection39–41.”
From Pancreatic cancer: Advances and challenges (2023) · cites this paper as [41]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Advances in artificial intelligence and deep learning methodologies in relation to early detection > Models based on electronic health records
“A consistent performance characteristic of electronic health record models is high specificity and low sensitivity, leading to high false-negative rates.”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Advances in artificial intelligence and deep learning methodologies in relation to early detection > Models based on electronic health records
“A model based on patients with new-onset diabetes residing in Minnesota, USA, incorporated age at onset of diabetes and changes in weight and blood glucose to identify people with a 4·5% 3-year predicted risk of developing pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, with 78% sensitivity and 80% specificity (AUC 0·87).103”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > Advances in artificial intelligence and deep learning methodologies in relation to early detection > Models based on electronic health records
“Among individuals with new-onset diabetes, this model identifies a population with 5% 3-year predicted risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, with 11% sensitivity and 99·7% specificity (AUC 0·82).104 The same model applied to individuals with pre-diabetes showed lower accuracy (AUC 0·71), but consistent direction of association with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.105”
§ Early detection of pancreatic cancer > References
“104. Boursi B, Finkelman B, Giantonio BJ, A clinical prediction model to assess risk for pancreatic cancer among patients with pre-diabetes. Jour Clin Onc 2019; 36: e16226. 105. Boursi B, Finkelman B, Giantonio BJ, A clinical prediction model to assess risk for pancreatic cancer among patients with new-onset diabetes.”
Citations
Cites
Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Siegel, R. L., Torre, L. A., & Jemal, A. (2018) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21492 · Cited by 84,109
The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain.
Rosenblatt, F. (1958) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0042519 · Cited by 12,280
Spencer, P. M., Cameron, J. L., & Lin, L. (2000) · Cited by 7,202
Rahib, L., Smith, B. D., Aizenberg, R., Rosenzweig, A. B., Fleshman, J. M., & Matrisian, L. M. (2014) · Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-14-0155 · Cited by 7,094
Allemani, C., Matsuda, T., Di Carlo, V., Harewood, R., Matz, M., Nikšić, M., Bonaventure, A., Valkov, M., Johnson, C. J., Estève, J., et al. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)33326-3 · Cited by 6,145
Detection and localization of surgically resectable cancers with a multi-analyte blood test
Cohen, J. D., Li, L., Wang, Y., Thoburn, C., Afsari, B., Danilova, L., Douville, C., Javed, A. A., Wong, F., Mattox, A., et al. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aar3247 · Cited by 2,783
Self-citationDistant metastasis occurs late during the genetic evolution of pancreatic cancer
Yachida, S., Jones, S., Bozic, I., Antal, T., Leary, R., Fu, B., Kamiyama, M., Hruban, R. H., Eshleman, J. R., Nowak, M. A., et al. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09515 · Cited by 2,502
Kamisawa, T., Wood, L. D., Itoi, T., & Takaori, K. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)00141-0 · Cited by 2,212
Riboli, E., Hunt, K., Slimani, N., Ferrari, P., Norat, T., Fahey, M., Charrondière, U., Hémon, B., Casagrande, C., Vignat, J., et al. (2002) · Public Health Nutrition · doi:10.1079/phn2002394 · Cited by 1,866
Saam, J. R., Arnell, C., Theisen, A. P., Moyes, K., Marino, I., Roundy, K. M., & WENSTRUP, R. J. (2015) · Oncology · doi:10.1159/000437307 · Cited by 1,533
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mizrahi, J. D., Surana, R., Valle, J. W., & Shroff, R. T. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30974-0 · Cited by 2,559
Pancreatic cancer: Advances and challenges
Halbrook, C. J., Lyssiotis, C. A., Pasca di Magliano, M., & Maitra, A. (2023) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2023.02.014 · Cited by 1,321
Pancreatic cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
Conroy, T., Pfeiffer, P., Vilgrain, V., Lamarca, Á., Seufferlein, T. T. W., O'Reilly, E. M., Hackert, T., Golan, T., Prager, G. W., Haustermans, K. M., et al. (2023) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2023.08.009 · Cited by 706
Proteogenomic characterization of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
Cao, L., Huang, C., Cui Zhou, D., Hu, Y., Lih, T. M., Savage, S. R., Krug, K., Clark, D. J., Schnaubelt, M., Chen, L., et al. (2021) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.023 · Cited by 578
Stoop, T. F., Javed, A. A., Oba, A., Koerkamp, B. G., Seufferlein, T. T. W., Wilmink, J. W., & Besselink, M. G. (2025) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(25)00261-2 · Cited by 601
Metadata
- Authors
- Pereira, S. P., Oldfield, L., Ney, A., Hart, P. A., Keane, M. G., Pandol, S. J., Li, D., Greenhalf, W., Jeon, C. Y., Koay, E. J., Almario, C. V., Halloran, C., Lennon, A. M., & Costello, E.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- University of Liverpool (GB)
- The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Costello, Eithne
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-07
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 698-710
- ISSN
- 2468-1156 (ISSN-L)
- 2468-1253
- PMC
- PMC7380506
- OpenAlex
- W2304258614
- Semantic Scholar
- dbdbc71bbd1a6d8362bfb5f28c2ceb4a79e97871
- Cited by
- 482
- References
- 127
- Citations by year
- 2026: 47 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 88 · 2023: 89 · 2022: 99 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 22
- FWCI
- 7.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- The Lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (U01CA196403–01, 1R01CA218004–01A1, 1U01CA200468–01, UL1TR001881–01, U54CA210181–01)
- Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh
- Pancreatic Cancer Action
- Cancer Research UK (C52547/A28210, C7690/A26881)
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U01DK108327, R01CA230442, U01DK108314, R21CA220073)
- National Institutes of Health (P50-CA062924)
- National Cancer Institute
- Pancreatic Cancer Research Fund
- Pancreatic Cancer UK
- National Institute for Health Research
- National Pancreas Foundation
- Pancreatic Cancer Action Network
- Lustgarten Foundation
- Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute
- Department of Health, Australian Government
- North West Cancer Research Fund
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Keywords
- pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, early detection, high-risk groups, genetic susceptibility, pancreatic cysts, new-onset diabetes, early diagnosis biomarkers, social media, prediction model, electronic health records, artificial intelligence, diagnostic imaging
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Artificial Intelligence, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diagnostic Imaging, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Pancreatic Cyst, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Risk Factors, Biomarkers, Tumor, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal, Early Detection of Cancer, Electronic Health Records, Social Media
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
