ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2023
Validation of a breast cancer risk prediction model based on the key risk factors: family history, mammographic density and polygenic risk.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2023. 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.
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, 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
- Predicting Breast Cancer Risk Using Radiomics Features of Mammography Images.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Validation of an Abridged Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model for the General Population.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe compared a simple breast cancer risk prediction model, BRISK (which includes mammographic density, polygenic risk and clinical factors), against a similar model with more risk factors (simplified Rosner) and against two commonly used clinical models (Gail and IBIS).
methodsUsing nested case-control data from the Nurses' Health Study, we compared the models' association, discrimination and calibration. Classification performance was compared between Gail and BRISK for 5-year risks and between IBIS and BRISK for remaining lifetime risk.
resultsThe odds ratio per standard deviation was 1.43 (95% CI 1.32, 1.55) for BRISK 5-year risk, 1.07 (95% CI 0.99, 1.14) for Gail 5-year risk, 1.72 (95% CI 1.59, 1.87) for simplified Rosner 10-year risk, 1.51 (95% CI 1.41, 1.62) for BRISK remaining lifetime risk and 1.26 (95% CI 1.16, 1.36) for IBIS remaining lifetime risk. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was improved for BRISK over Gail for 5-year risk (AUC = 0.636 versus 0.511, P < 0.0001) and for BRISK over IBIS for remaining lifetime risk (AUC = 0.647 versus 0.571, P < 0.0001). BRISK was well calibrated for the estimation of both 5-year risk (expected/observed [E/O] = 1.03; 95% CI 0.73, 1.46) and remaining lifetime risk (E/O = 1.01; 95% CI 0.86, 1.17). The Gail 5-year risk (E/O = 0.85; 95% CI 0.58, 1.24) and IBIS remaining lifetime risk (E/O = 0.73; 95% CI 0.60, 0.87) were not well calibrated, with both under-estimating risk. BRISK improves classification of risk compared to Gail 5-year risk (NRI = 0.31; standard error [SE] = 0.031) and IBIS remaining lifetime risk (NRI = 0.287; SE = 0.035).
conclusionBRISK performs better than two commonly used clinical risk models and no worse compared to a similar model with more risk factors.
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.