ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2023
Polygenic risk scores for prediction of breast cancer in Korean women.
Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive performance of breast cancer polygenic risk scores from diverse ancestries: a prospective study in Japanese women.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2026Article
- Recommendations for responsible use of population descriptors in polygenic risk score development.Nature genetics · 2025Review
- Wasm-iCARE: a portable and privacy-preserving web module to build, validate, and apply absolute risk models.JAMIA open · 2024Article
- Wasm-iCARE: a portable and privacy-preserving web module to build, validate, and apply absolute risk models.ArXiv · 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPolygenic risk scores (PRSs) for breast cancer, developed using European and Asian genome-wide association studies (GWAS), have been shown to have good discrimination in Asian women. However, prospective calibration of absolute risk prediction models, based on a PRS or PRS combined with lifestyle, clinical and environmental factors, in Asian women is limited.
methodsWe consider several PRSs trained using European and/or Asian GWAS. For each PRS, we evaluate the discrimination and calibration of three absolute risk models among 41 031 women from the Korean Cancer Prevention Study (KCPS)-II Biobank: (i) a model using incidence, mortality and risk factor distributions (reference inputs) among US women and European relative risks; (ii) a recalibrated model, using Korean reference but European relative risks; and (iii) a fully Korean-based model using Korean reference and relative risk estimates from KCPS.
resultsAll Asian and European PRS improved discrimination over lifestyle, clinical and environmental (Qx) factors in Korean women. US-based absolute risk models overestimated the risks for women aged ≥50 years, and this overestimation was larger for models that only included PRS (expected-to-observed ratio E/O = 1.2 for women <50, E/O = 2.7 for women ≥50). Recalibrated and Korean-based risk models had better calibration in the large, although the risk in the highest decile was consistently overestimated. Absolute risk projections suggest that risk-reducing lifestyle changes would lead to larger absolute risk reductions among women at higher PRS.
conclusionsAbsolute risk models incorporating PRS trained in European and Asian GWAS and population-appropriate average age-specific incidences may be useful for risk-stratified interventions in Korean women.
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.