ArticleCancers2021
Prospective Evaluation over 15 Years of Six Breast Cancer Risk Models.
Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Development and performance of female breast cancer incidence risk prediction models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Evaluating the performance of the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence Algorithm model in predicting 10-year breast cancer risks in UK Biobank.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Variability Among Breast Cancer Risk Classification Models When Applied at the Level of the Individual Woman.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tools for Stratifying Women into Risk Groups: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2023Review
- Combining Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Models.Cancers · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prospective validation of risk models is needed to assess their clinical utility, particularly over the longer term. We evaluated the performance of six commonly used breast cancer risk models (IBIS, BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, BRCAPRO-BCRAT, BCRAT, and iCARE-lit). 15-year risk scores were estimated using lifestyle factors and family history measures from 7608 women in the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study who were aged 50-65 years and unaffected at commencement of follow-up two (conducted in 2003-2007), of whom 351 subsequently developed breast cancer. Risk discrimination was assessed using the C-statistic and calibration using the expected/observed number of incident cases across the spectrum of risk by age group (50-54, 55-59, 60-65 years) and family history of breast cancer. C-statistics were higher for BOADICEA (0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.62) and IBIS (0.57, 95% CI 0.54-0.61) than the other models (
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.