ArticleFrontiers in oncology2019
Epigeneti-What? Approaches on Translating Research for Primary Breast Cancer Prevention.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Embedding the Community and Individuals in Disease Prevention.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In fiscal year 2017, the National Cancer Institute devoted more than a half billion dollars to breast cancer research. Since 2012, the total investment has been more than $3 billion. Despite this significant investment, breast cancer still has no known immediate causes as it generally develops over the life course. Therefore, research is unable to provide the public any sort of magic bullet, or conclusive link between certain environmental exposures and the development of breast cancer later in life. What research is only able to report are likelihoods-possible links-things people might want to consider avoiding or doing in their everyday lives to reduce their future risks of developing breast cancer. This abundance of rigorously performed, albeit causally inconclusive, research focused on "plausible" links poses a challenge for health communicators who are tasked with seeking to find ways to translate this science into advice that people can act upon today. However, if society must wait for the science to provide 100% conclusive evidence before anyone ever takes action, how many lives could have been saved in the interim? Therefore, we advocate a two-pronged approach to translating scientific findings regarding environmental exposures and breast cancer prevention: a bottom-up approach-focused on informing the lay public and individuals, while simultaneously performing a top-down approach-focused on influencing policymakers. The current perspective analyzes the strengths and weaknesses to both of these approaches, and encourages scientists to work closely with health communicators to develop theoretically-driven strategies to drive positive changes over time.
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.