ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2024
Assessment of
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2024. 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.
- Assessing the Clinical Relevance ofCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Functional assays for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant analysis: new tools and their applications.NPJ breast cancer · 2026Review
- Cancer genomic profiling predicts pathogenicity ofmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Unraveling the hidden complexity of cancer through long-read sequencing.Genome research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe emergence of large real-world clinical databases and tools to mine electronic medical records has allowed for an unprecedented look at large data sets with clinical and epidemiologic correlates. In clinical cancer genetics, real-world databases allow for the investigation of prevalence and effectiveness of prevention strategies and targeted treatments and for the identification of barriers to better outcomes. However, real-world data sets have inherent biases and problems (eg, selection bias, incomplete data, measurement error) that may hamper adequate analysis and affect statistical power.
methodsHere, we leverage a real-world clinical data set from a large health network for patients with breast cancer tested for variants in
resultsIn the cohort, White and Black patients were over-represented, whereas non-White Hispanic and Asian patients were under-represented. Incorrect or missing variant designations were the most significant contributor to data loss. While manual curation corrected many incorrect designations, a sizable fraction of patient carriers remained with incorrect or missing variant designations. Despite the large number of patients with clinical significance not reported, original reported clinical significance assessments were accurate. Reassessment of variants in which clinical significance was not reported led to a marked improvement in data quality.
conclusionWe identify the most common issues with
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.