ArticleBMC research notes2025
External validation of a multivariable prediction model for positive resection margins in breast-conserving surgery.
Article in BMC research notes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPositive resection margins after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) most often demands a repeat surgery. To preoperatively identify patients at risk of positive margins, a multivariable model has been developed that predicts positive margins after BCS with a high accuracy. This study aimed to externally validate this prediction model to explore its generalizability and assess if additional preoperatively available variables can further improve its predictive accuracy. The validation cohort included 225 patients with invasive breast cancer who underwent BCS at Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark during 2020-2022. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and calibration analysis were used to validate the prediction model. Univariable logistic regression was used to evaluate if additional variables available in the validation cohort were associated with positive margins and backward elimination to explore if these variables could further improve the model´s predictive accuracy.
resultsThe AUC of the model was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.70) indicating a lower discriminative capacity in the external cohort. We found weak evidence for an association between increased preoperative breast density on mammography and positive resection margins after BCS (p = 0.027), but the AUC of the model did not improve, when mammographic breast density was included as an additional variable in the model.
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.