ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2020
Performance of Breast Cancer Risk-Assessment Models in a Large Mammography Cohort.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 4 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
57 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 103 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current state of mammography-based artificial intelligence for future breast cancer risk prediction: a systematic review.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Pooled it
- Personalizing cancer risk: a systematic review of risk communication strategies.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Development and performance of female breast cancer incidence risk prediction models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence-Driven Mammography-Based Future Breast Cancer Risk Prediction: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2024Pooled it
- Advanced Versus Invasive Breast Cancer Risk in a Screening Population: Implications for Risk-based Prevention and Screening Strategies.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Racialized Heteroscedasticity in Neuroimaging Features, Behavior Measures, and Neuroimaging-Based Predictive Models.Research square · 2026Article
- Advancements in Developing an Automated Breast Density Detection Technique for Breast Cancer Risk Prediction: Synthesizing a Signal-dependent Noise Stochastic Process.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Multimodal artificial intelligence in breast cancer: towards integrated prediction and personalized care.European radiology · 2026Article
- Five-Year Absolute Risk-Based and Age-Based Breast Cancer Screening in the US.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Deep learning mammography-based breast cancer risk model, its serial change, and breast cancer mortality.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Article
- Current insights into breast and ovarian cancer risk: a contemporary review.Minerva surgery · 2025Review
- Breast cancer screening and prevention in the UAE: a cross-sectional study of risk awareness and provider engagement.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Improved breast cancer risk prediction using chromosomal-scale length variation.Human genomics · 2025Article
- AI image analysis as the basis for risk-stratified screening.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Analysis of Lifestyle and Genetic Risk Factors in Urban Women in China Who Had Malignant or Suspected Malignant Breast Nodules Identified via Breast Cancer Screening.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Subgroups varying in risk and density highlight the potential for stratified breast cancer screening.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2025Article
- Governance for anti-racist AI in healthcare: integrating racism-related stress in psychiatric algorithms for Black Americans.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- A Retrospective Chart Analysis Comparing Breast Cancer Detection Rates Between Annual Versus Biennial Mammograms.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2024Article
- Validation of the Mirai model for predicting breast cancer risk in Mexican women.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Assessment of the Breast Density Prevalence in Swiss Women with a Deep Convolutional Neural Network: A Cross-Sectional Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral breast cancer risk-assessment models exist. Few studies have evaluated predictive accuracy of multiple models in large screening populations.
methodsWe evaluated the performance of the BRCAPRO, Gail, Claus, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), and Tyrer-Cuzick models in predicting risk of breast cancer over 6 years among 35 921 women aged 40-84 years who underwent mammography screening at Newton-Wellesley Hospital from 2007 to 2009. We assessed model discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and assessed calibration by comparing the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) cases. We calculated the square root of the Brier score and positive and negative predictive values of each model.
resultsOur results confirmed the good calibration and comparable moderate discrimination of the BRCAPRO, Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick, and BCSC models. The Gail model had slightly better O/E ratio and AUC (O/E = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91 to 1.06, AUC = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.65) compared with BRCAPRO (O/E = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.02, AUC = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.63) and Tyrer-Cuzick (version 8, O/E = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.91, AUC = 0.62, 95% 0.60 to 0.64) in the full study population, and the BCSC model had the highest AUC among women with available breast density information (O/E = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.05, AUC = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.66). All models had poorer predictive accuracy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive and triple-negative breast cancers than hormone receptor positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative breast cancers.
conclusionsIn a large cohort of patients undergoing mammography screening, existing risk prediction models had similar, moderate predictive accuracy and good calibration overall. Models that incorporate additional genetic and nongenetic risk factors and estimate risk of tumor subtypes may further improve breast cancer risk prediction.
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.