Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36862830›Full record

ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2023

Validation of an Abridged Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model for the General Population.

Erika L Spaeth, Gillian S Dite, John L Hopper, Richard Allman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2023. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Assessing the Value of Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score with Nongenetic Factors for Predicting Breast Cancer Diagnosis in the UK Biobank.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Erika L SpaethPhenogen Sciences Inc, Charlotte, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0002-5397-3493
Gillian S DiteGenetic Technologies Limited, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2448-2548
John L HopperCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8567-173X
Richard AllmanGenetic Technologies Limited, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8635-5237

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

prevention relevanceIn this prospective population-based cohort study, we show the improved performance of a new risk assessment model compared with a gold-standard model (BCRAT). The classification of at-risk women using this new model highlights the opportunity to improve risk stratification and implement existing clinical risk-reduction interventions.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesFemaleHumansProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID36862830
PMCPMC10150247

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.