ArticleAging2020
Prognostic validation and treatment decision making of the 8
Article in Aging, 2020. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breast cancer care for the aging population: a focus on age-related disparities in breast cancer treatment.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Validation of the AJCC 8th Edition Breast Cancer Prognostic Staging System in Legacy Alliance Trials (AFT-01).Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Pan-cancer analysis suggests that LY6H is a potential biomarker of diagnosis, immunoinfiltration, and prognosis.Journal of Cancer · 2024Article
- Stage-Specific Survival in Breast Cancer in Chinese and White Women: Comparative Data Analysis.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2022Article
- Triple-negative breast cancer outcomes: Does AJCC 8th staging improve chemotherapy decision-making.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the prognostication and treatment decision making of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8
resultsWe included 67699 patients, and patients were restaged into stage IA (84.9%), IB (8.9%), and IIA (6.2%) using the 8
conclusionsThe 8
methodsWe identified stage T1-2N0M0 BC patients using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Statistical analyses were used binomial logistic regression, and multivariable competing risk models in the Cox model framework.
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.