Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37707814›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Geographical Variation in Social Determinants of Female Breast Cancer Mortality Across US Counties.

Taylor Anderson, Dan Herrera, Franchesca Mireku, Kai Barner, Abigail Kokkinakis, Ha Dao, Amanda Webber, Alexandra Diaz Merida, Travis Gallo, Mariaelena Pierobon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Deep learning in multi-modal breast cancer data fusion: a literature review.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Geospatial Genomics: Operationalizing Multilevel Conceptual Frameworks of Cancer Health Outcomes to Account for Gene-Person-Place Relationships.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

Taylor AndersonDepartment of Geography and Geoinformation Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
Dan HerreraDepartment of Environmental Science and Technology, University of Maryland, College Park.
Franchesca MirekuDepartment of Geography and Geoinformation Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
Kai BarnerDepartment of Geography and Geoinformation Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
Abigail KokkinakisDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
Ha DaoDepartment of Statistics, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
Amanda WebberDepartment of Geography and Geoinformation Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
Alexandra Diaz MeridaDepartment of Global and Community Health, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
Travis GalloDepartment of Environmental Science and Technology, University of Maryland, College Park.
Mariaelena PierobonSchool of Systems Biology, Center for Applied Proteomics and Molecular Medicine, George Mason University, Manassas, Virginia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Breast cancer mortality is complex and traditional approaches that seek to identify determinants of mortality assume that their effects on mortality are stationary across geographic space and scales. Objective: To identify geographic variation in the associations of population demographics, environmental, lifestyle, and health care access with breast cancer mortality at the US county-level. Design, Setting, and Participants: This geospatial cross-sectional study used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database on adult female patients with breast cancer. Statistical and spatial analysis was completed using adjusted mortality rates from 2015 to 2019 for 2176 counties in the US. Data were analyzed July 2022. Exposures: County-level population demographics, environmental, lifestyle, and health care access variables were obtained from open data sources. Main Outcomes and Measures: Model coefficients describing the association between 18 variables and age-adjusted breast cancer mortality rate. Compared with a multivariable linear regression (OLS), multiscale geographically weighted regression (MGWR) relaxed the assumption of spatial stationarity and allowed for the magnitude, direction, and significance of coefficients to change across geographic space. Results: Both OLS and MGWR models agreed that county-level age-adjusted breast cancer mortality rates were significantly positively associated with obesity (OLS: β, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.54; mean [SD] MGWR: β, 0.72 [0.02]) and negatively associated with proportion of adults screened via mammograms (OLS: β, -1.27; 95% CI, -1.70 to -0.84; mean [SD] MGWR: β, -1.07 [0.16]). Furthermore, the MGWR model revealed that these 2 determinants were associated with a stationary effect on mortality across the US. However, the MGWR model provided important insights on other county-level factors differentially associated with breast cancer mortality across the US. Both models agreed that smoking (OLS: β, -0.65; 95% CI, -0.98 to -0.32; mean [SD] MGWR: β, -0.75 [0.92]), food environment index (OLS: β, -1.35; 95% CI, -1.72 to -0.98; mean [SD] MGWR: β, -1.69 [0.70]), exercise opportunities (OLS: β, -0.56; 95% CI, -0.91 to -0.21; mean [SD] MGWR: β, -0.59 [0.81]), racial segregation (OLS: β, -0.60; 95% CI, -0.89 to -0.31; mean [SD] MGWR: β, -0.47 [0.41]), mental health care physician ratio (OLS: β, -0.93; 95% CI, -1.44 to -0.42; mean [SD] MGWR: β, -0.48 [0.92]), and primary care physician ratio (OLS: β, -1.46; 95% CI, -2.13 to -0.79; mean [SD] MGWR: β, -1.06 [0.57]) were negatively associated with breast cancer mortality, and that light pollution was positively associated (OLS: β, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.72; mean [SD] MGWR: β, 0.27 [0.04]). But in the MGWR model, the magnitude of effect sizes and significance varied across geographical regions. Inversely, the OLS model found that disability was not a significant variable for breast cancer mortality, yet the MGWR model found that it was significantly positively associated in some geographical locations. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that not all social determinants associated with breast cancer mortality are spatially stationary and provides spatially explicit insights for public health practitioners to guide geographically targeted interventions.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsAdultBreastCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMammographySocial Determinants of Health

Identifiers

PMID37707814
PMCPMC10502521

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.