ArticleCancers2023
A Clinical Risk Model for Personalized Screening and Prevention of Breast Cancer.
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Current state of mammography-based artificial intelligence for future breast cancer risk prediction: a systematic review.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Pooled it
- Predicting short- to long-term breast cancer risk from longitudinal mammographic screening history.NPJ breast cancer · 2025Article
- Incorporating Continuous Mammographic Density Into the BOADICEA Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- AI's ongoing impact: Implications of AI's effects on health equity for women's healthcare providers.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence Algorithm for Subclinical Breast Cancer Detection.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Modeling correlated pairs of mammogram images.Statistics in medicine · 2024Article
- European validation of an image-derived AI-based short-term risk model for individualized breast cancer screening-a nested case-control study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImage-derived artificial intelligence (AI) risk models have shown promise in identifying high-risk women in the short term. The long-term performance of image-derived risk models expanded with clinical factors has not been investigated.
methodsWe performed a case-cohort study of 8110 women aged 40-74 randomly selected from a Swedish mammography screening cohort initiated in 2010 together with 1661 incident BCs diagnosed before January 2022. The imaging-only AI risk model extracted mammographic features and age at screening. Additional lifestyle/familial risk factors were incorporated into the lifestyle/familial-expanded AI model. Absolute risks were calculated using the two models and the clinical Tyrer-Cuzick v8 model. Age-adjusted model performances were compared across the 10-year follow-up.
resultsThe AUCs of the lifestyle/familial-expanded AI risk model ranged from 0.75 (95%CI: 0.70-0.80) to 0.68 (95%CI: 0.66-0.69) 1-10 years after study entry. Corresponding AUCs were 0.72 (95%CI: 0.66-0.78) to 0.65 (95%CI: 0.63-0.66) for the imaging-only model and 0.62 (95%CI: 0.55-0.68) to 0.60 (95%CI: 0.58-0.61) for Tyrer-Cuzick v8. The increased performances were observed in multiple risk subgroups and cancer subtypes. Among the 5% of women at highest risk, the PPV was 5.8% using the lifestyle/familial-expanded model compared with 5.3% using the imaging-only model,
conclusionsThe lifestyle/familial-expanded AI risk model showed higher performance for both long-term and short-term risk assessment compared with imaging-only and Tyrer-Cuzick 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.