Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40151468›Full record

ArticleMDM policy & practice

Bridging the Gap: A Mixed-Methods Study on Factors Influencing Breast Cancer Clinicians' Decisions to Use Clinical Prediction Models.

Mary Ann E Binuya, Sabine C Linn, Annelies H Boekhout, Marjanka K Schmidt, Ellen G Engelhardt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MDM policy & practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mary Ann E BinuyaDivision of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8682-8690
Sabine C LinnDivision of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Annelies H BoekhoutDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marjanka K SchmidtDivision of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ellen G EngelhardtDivision of Molecular Pathology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0016-4972

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Highlights: Accessibility, cost, and practical considerations, such as ease of use and clinical utility, were prioritized slightly more than technical validation metrics, such as discrimination and calibration, when deciding to start using a clinical prediction model.Most breast cancer clinicians valued models with clear inputs (e.g., variable definitions, cutoffs) and outputs; few were interested in the exact model specifications.Perceptual or subjective factors, including perceived accuracy and peer acceptability, also influenced model adoption but were secondary to practical considerations.Sociodemographic variables, such as clinical specialization and hospital setting, influenced the importance of factors for model use.

Indexed as

breast cancerclinical prediction modelsclinician preferencesmodel implementationpersonalized decision makingrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID40151468
PMCPMC11948560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.