Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31881042›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Predicting breast cancer risk using personal health data and machine learning models.

Gigi F Stark, Gregory R Hart, Bradley J Nartowt, Jun Deng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Cataract surgery risk stratification models: a systematic review.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Gigi F StarkDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6658-3435
Gregory R HartDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0576-7430
Bradley J NartowtDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8066-7160
Jun DengDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States of America.

Funding

Tracking Organ Doses for Patient Safety in Radiation TherapyR01EB022589 · NIBIB · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI DENG, JUN · 2016 to 2018
$1.1M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB022589
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Among women, breast cancer is a leading cause of death. Breast cancer risk predictions can inform screening and preventative actions. Previous works found that adding inputs to the widely-used Gail model improved its ability to predict breast cancer risk. However, these models used simple statistical architectures and the additional inputs were derived from costly and / or invasive procedures. By contrast, we developed machine learning models that used highly accessible personal health data to predict five-year breast cancer risk. We created machine learning models using only the Gail model inputs and models using both Gail model inputs and additional personal health data relevant to breast cancer risk. For both sets of inputs, six machine learning models were trained and evaluated on the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial data set. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve metric quantified each model's performance. Since this data set has a small percentage of positive breast cancer cases, we also reported sensitivity, specificity, and precision. We used Delong tests (p < 0.05) to compare the testing data set performance of each machine learning model to that of the Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Tool (BCRAT), an implementation of the Gail model. None of the machine learning models with only BCRAT inputs were significantly stronger than the BCRAT. However, the logistic regression, linear discriminant analysis, and neural network models with the broader set of inputs were all significantly stronger than the BCRAT. These results suggest that relative to the BCRAT, additional easy-to-obtain personal health inputs can improve five-year breast cancer risk prediction. Our models could be used as non-invasive and cost-effective risk stratification tools to increase early breast cancer detection and prevention, motivating both immediate actions like screening and long-term preventative measures such as hormone replacement therapy and chemoprevention.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAgedBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHealth Records, PersonalHumansMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID31881042
PMCPMC6934281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.