ArticleClinical breast cancer2014
Assessing breast cancer risk models in Marin County, a population with high rates of delayed childbirth.
Article in Clinical breast cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Development and performance of female breast cancer incidence risk prediction models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Assessment of performance of the Gail model for predicting breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2018Pooled it
- Ultra-processed food consumption and the risk of breast cancer incidence and death: a prospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tools for Stratifying Women into Risk Groups: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2023Review
- Assessment of the risk of developing breast cancer using the Gail model in Asian females: A systematic review.Heliyon · 2020Review
- Comparative Validation of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Models and Projections for Future Risk Stratification.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020Article
- Comparison of Questionnaire-Based Breast Cancer Prediction Models in the Nurses' Health Study.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2019Article
- Assessing the Effects of Participant Preference and Demographics in the Usage of Web-based Survey Questionnaires by Women Attending Screening Mammography in British Columbia.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Article
- Can the breast screening appointment be used to provide risk assessment and prevention advice?Breast cancer research : BCR · 2015Article
- Reducing Cardiovascular and Cancer Risk: How to Address Global Primary Prevention in Clinical Practice.Clinical cardiology · 2015Review
- Risk determination and prevention of breast cancer.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study was designed to compare the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT; Gail), International Breast Intervention Study (IBIS; Tyrer-Cuzick), and BRCAPRO breast cancer risk assessment models using data from the Marin Women's Study, a cohort of women within Marin County, California, with high rates of breast cancer, nulliparity, and delayed childbirth. Existing models have not been well-validated in these high-risk populations.
methodsDiscrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration by estimating the ratio of expected-to-observed (E/O) cases. The models were assessed using data from 12,843 participants, of whom 203 had developed cancer during a 5-year period. All tests of statistical significance were 2-sided.
resultsThe IBIS model achieved an AUC of 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.68) compared with 0.62 (95% CI, 0.59-0.66) for BCRAT and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.56-0.63) for BRCAPRO. The corresponding estimated E/O ratios for the models were 1.08 (95% CI, 0.95-1.25), 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93), and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.52-0.68). In women with age at first birth > 30 years, the AUC for the IBIS, BCRAT, and BRCAPRO models was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.62-0.75), 0.63 (95% CI, 0.56-0.70), and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.68) and the E/O ratio was 1.15 (95% CI, 0.89-1.47), 0.81 (95% CI, 0.63-1.05), and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.41-0.68), respectively.
conclusionsThe IBIS model was well calibrated for the high-risk Marin mammography population and demonstrated the best calibration of the 3 models in nulliparous women. The IBIS model also achieved the greatest overall discrimination and displayed superior discrimination for women with age at first birth > 30 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.