Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35351695›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Development and validation of clinical prediction models for breast cancer incidence and mortality: a protocol for a dual cohort study.

Ashley Kieran Clift, Julia Hippisley-Cox, David Dodwell, Simon Lord, Mike Brady, Stavros Petrou, Gary S Collins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

7 authors.

Ashley Kieran CliftCancer Research UK Oxford Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK ashley.clift@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0061-979X
Julia Hippisley-CoxNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2479-7283
David DodwellNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8787-4904
Simon LordDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Mike BradyDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Stavros PetrouNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3121-6050
Gary S CollinsCentre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2772-2316

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27294Medical Research Council G0501681Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBreast cancer is the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related death in women worldwide. Risk prediction models may be useful to guide risk-reducing interventions (such as pharmacological agents) in women at increased risk or inform screening strategies for early detection methods such as screening. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will use data for women aged 20-90 years between 2000 and 2020 from QResearch linked at the individual level to hospital episodes, cancer registry and death registry data. It will evaluate a set of modelling approaches to predict the risk of developing breast cancer within the next 10 years, the 'combined' risk of developing a breast cancer and then dying from it within 10 years, and the risk of breast cancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards, competing risks, random survival forest, deep learning and XGBoost models will be explored. Models will be developed on the entire dataset, with 'apparent' performance reported, and internal-external cross-validation used to assess performance and geographical and temporal transportability (two 10-year time periods). Random effects meta-analysis will pool discrimination and calibration metric estimates from individual geographical units obtained from internal-external cross-validation. We will then externally validate the models in an independent dataset. Evaluation of performance heterogeneity will be conducted throughout, such as exploring performance across ethnic groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was granted by the QResearch scientific committee (reference number REC 18/EM/0400: OX129). The results will be written up for submission to peer-reviewed journals.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsModels, StatisticalCohort StudiesFemaleHumansIncidenceMeta-Analysis as TopicPrognosisbreast tumourspublic healthstatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID35351695
PMCPMC8961149

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.