ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2025
Evaluating PREDICT and developing outcome prediction models in early-onset breast cancer using data from Alberta, Canada.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic and predictive performance of PREDICT 2.1, PREDICT v3, and RSClin in node-negative early breast cancer: a TEAM pathology substudy.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Trial
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOutcome prediction research in early-onset breast cancer (EoBC) is limited. This study evaluated the predictive performance of NHS PREDICT v2.1 and developed two prediction models for 5-year and 10-year all-cause mortality in a cohort of EoBC patients in Alberta, Canada.
methodsAdults < 40 years diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in Alberta, Canada from 2004 to 2020 were included. Patient data were entered into PREDICT v2.1 and mortality estimates at 5 and 10 years were extracted. Two prediction models were developed for all-cause mortality: multivariable Cox regression with LASSO penalization (LASSO Cox) and random survival forests (RSF). Internal validation of the developed models was performed using nested tenfold cross-validation repeated 200 times. Model performance was assessed using receiver operator characteristic and calibration curves for mortality at 5 and 10 years.
resultsIn total, 1827 patients with EoBC were eligible for inclusion. At 5 years, PREDICT had an area under the curve of 0.78 (95%CI 0.74-0.82) and overestimated mortality by 2.4% (95%CI 0.70-4.33) in the overall cohort. No differences in observed and predicted mortality by PREDICT were observed at 10 years. The LASSO Cox model showed better discrimination at 5 and 10 years than the RSF model, but both had poor calibration and underestimated mortality.
conclusionPREDICT v2.1 tended to overestimate 5-year mortality in those with > 30% predicted risks and 10-year mortality in those with > 50% predicted risks for EoBC in Alberta, Canada. We did not identify additional models that would be clinically useful by applying machine learning. More follow-up data and emerging systemic treatment variables are required to study outcome prediction in modern cohorts.
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.