ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2018
Utility of Genetic Testing in Addition to Mammography for Determining Risk of Breast Cancer Depends on Patient Age.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of Breast Cancer using Machine Learning Approaches.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2022Article
- Personalized Risk-Based Screening Design for Comparative Two-Arm Group Sequential Clinical Trials.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Cancer Prevention and Screening for Older Adults: Part 2. Interventions to Prevent and Screen for Breast, Prostate, Cervical, Ovarian, and Endometrial Cancer.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2020Review
- Assessing breast cancer risk within the general screening population: developing a breast cancer risk model to identify higher risk women at mammographic screening.European radiology · 2020Article
- Improving breast cancer risk prediction by using demographic risk factors, abnormality features on mammograms and genetic variants.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While screening and treatment have sharply reduced breast cancer mortality in the past 50 years, more targeted diagnostic testing may improve the accuracy and efficiency of care. Our retrospective, age-matched, case-control study evaluated the differential value of mammography and genetic variants to predict breast cancer depending on patient age. We developed predictive models using logistic regression with group lasso comparing (1) diagnostic mammography findings, (2) selected genetic variants, and (3) a combination of both. For women older than 60, mammography features were most predictive of breast cancer risk (imaging AUC = 0.74, genetic variants AUC = 0.54, combined AUC = 0.71). For women younger than 60 there is additional benefit to obtaining genetic testing (imaging AUC = 0.69, genetic variants AUC = 0.70, combined AUC = 0.72). In summary, genetic testing supplements mammography in younger women while mammography appears sufficient in older women for breast cancer risk prediction.
Identifiers
29888046PMC5961791What 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.