ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Recurrence Risk Prediction by the CanAssist Breast Test and the PREDICT Online Tool in Early Breast Cancer Patients.
Article in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Several methods, such as multi-marker (both gene/protein) tests and online/free tools, are available for the prognostication of early breast cancer (EBC) patients. This article compares the risk assessment between the immunohistochemistry-based (IHC) CanAssist Breast (CAB) test and the online/free prognostic tool PREDICT in EBC patients treated at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre (RGCIRC) between May 2017 and June 2022. Methodology The current study cohort comprises 130 patients. Risk proportions were assessed by CAB and the online/free tool PREDICT. Concordance between the risk groups of CAB and PREDICT was assessed by the kappa coefficient, which was used to evaluate the significance. Results The low-risk (LR) and high-risk (HR) proportions for CAB and PREDICT were 61:39 and 46:54 percent, respectively. CAB stratified a significantly (
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.