ArticleThe oncologist2024
Insights into the performance of PREDICT tool in a large Mainland Chinese breast cancer cohort: a comparative analysis of versions 3.0 and 2.2.
Article in The oncologist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transfer Learning and Machine Learning for Training Five-Year Survival Prognostic Models in Early Breast Cancer: Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- PREDICT v3.0 outperforms v2.2 in young (25-40 years) breast cancer patients according to real-world data from a large Swedish population-based registry.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2026Article
- Validation of the postoperative prognostication tool PREDICT version 2.2 and 3.0 using data from the National cancer center hospital in Japan.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPREDICT is a web-based tool for forecasting breast cancer outcomes. PREDICT version 3.0 was recently released. This study aimed to validate this tool for a large population in mainland China and compare v3.0 with v2.2.
methodsWomen who underwent surgery for nonmetastatic primary invasive breast cancer between 2010 and 2020 from the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University were selected. Predicted and observed 5-year overall survival (OS) for both v3.0 and v2.2 were compared. Discrimination was compared using receiver-operator curves and DeLong test. Calibration was evaluated using calibration plots and chi-squared test. A difference greater than 5% was deemed clinically relevant.
resultsA total of 5424 patients were included, with median follow-up time of 58 months (IQR 38-89 months). Compared to v2.2, v3.0 did not show improved discriminatory accuracy for 5-year OS (AUC: 0.756 vs 0.771), same as ER-positive and ER-negative patients. However, calibration was significantly improved in v3.0, with predicted 5-year OS deviated from observed by -2.0% for the entire cohort, -2.9% for ER-positive and -0.0% for ER-negative patients, compared to -7.3%, -4.7% and -13.7% in v2.2. In v3.0, 5-year OS was underestimated by 9.0% for patients older than 75 years, and 5.8% for patients with micrometastases. Patients with distant metastases postdiagnosis was overestimated by 10.6%.
conclusionsPREDICT v3.0 reliably predicts 5-year OS for the majority of Chinese patients with breast cancer. PREDICT v3.0 significantly improved the predictive accuracy for ER-negative groups. Furthermore, caution is advised when interpreting 5-year OS for patients aged over 70, those with micrometastases or metastases postdiagnosis.
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.