Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 336

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

American Joint Committee on Cancer acceptance criteria for inclusion of risk models for individualized prognosis in the practice of precision medicine

Open access
Kattan, Michael W., Hess, Kenneth R., Amin, Mahul B., Lu, Ying, Moons, Karl G.M., Gershenwald, Jeffrey E., Gimotty, Phyllis A., Guinney, Justin H., Halabi, Susan, Lazar, Alexander J., Mahar, Alyson L., Patel, Tushar, Sargent, Daniel J., Weiser, Martin R., Compton, Carolyn, members of the AJCC Precision Medicine Core·2016·CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians

Abstract

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) has increasingly recognized the need for more personalized probabilistic predictions than those delivered by ordinal staging systems, particularly through the use of accurate risk models or calculators. However, judging the quality and acceptability of a risk model is complex. The AJCC Precision Medicine Core conducted a 2‐day meeting to discuss characteristics necessary for a quality risk model in cancer patients. More specifically, the committee established inclusion and exclusion criteria necessary for a risk model to potentially be endorsed by the AJCC. This committee reviewed and discussed relevant literature before creating a checklist unique to this need of AJCC risk model endorsement. The committee identified 13 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria for AJCC risk model endorsement in cancer. The emphasis centered on performance metrics, implementation clarity, and clinical relevance. The facilitation of personalized probabilistic predictions for cancer patients holds tremendous promise, and these criteria will hopefully greatly accelerate this process. Moreover, these criteria might be useful for a general audience when trying to judge the potential applicability of a published risk model in any clinical domain. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:370–374. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3322/caac.21339

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 336

Metadata

Authors
Kattan, M. W., Hess, K. R., Amin, M. B., Lu, Y., Moons, K. G. M., Gershenwald, J. E., Gimotty, P. A., Guinney, J. H., Halabi, S., Lazar, A. J., Mahar, A. L., Patel, T., Sargent, D. J., Weiser, M. R., Compton, C., & Core, M. O. T. A. P. M.
Venue
CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-01-19
Volume
66
Issue
5
Pages
370-374
ISSN
  • 0007-9235 (ISSN-L)
  • 1542-4863
OpenAlex
W2293962048
Cited by
336
References
2
FWCI
19.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: American Joint Committee on Cancer acceptance criteria for inclusion of risk models for individualized prognosis in the practice of precision medicine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3322/caac.21339
The paper
Kattan, M. W., Hess, K. R., Amin, M. B., Lu, Y., Moons, K. G. M., Gershenwald, J. E., Gimotty, P. A., Guinney, J. H., Halabi, S., Lazar, A. J., Mahar, A. L., Patel, T., Sargent, D. J., Weiser, M. R., Compton, C., & Core, M. O. T. A. P. M. (2016). American Joint Committee on Cancer acceptance criteria for inclusion of risk models for individualized prognosis in the practice of precision medicine. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21339

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.