ArticleJournal of translational medicine2025
Impact of personalised risk predictions on breast cancer risk perceptions: insights from the BREATHE study.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breast Cancer Screening Knowledge and Sentiments in Singaporean Women: Mixed Methods Study Using Topic Modeling, Sentiment Analysis, and Structured Questionnaire Data.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Under-recognized risk factors and low perceived breast cancer risk among rural women in South-central China: A multisite cross-sectional study.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2025Article
- Improving preventive screening efficiency: A population-based model of age-specific mammographic density for breast Cancer detection in Saudi Arabia.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- Profile of the BREATHE cohort for risk-based breast screening in Singapore.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveBiennial mammography screening is well-established for women aged 50 and above, but guidelines for younger women are less clear. Risk-based screening may provide women with key information to make informed decisions about their breast cancer risk and screening. This study examines how predicted breast cancer (BC) risk shapes women's perception and confidence in risk prediction.
methodsWomen aged 35 to 59 years were recruited for a prospective multi-centre cohort and stratified into above-average, average, or below-average BC risk categories based on genetic and non-genetic risk factors. Perceived risk was assessed at enrolment and after participants were informed of their predicted risk. We used ordinal models to identify predictors of perceived risk and logistic regression to examine the relationship between changes in perceived risk and confidence in the risk prediction.
resultsAt enrolment, 43% and 47% of 4112 participants perceived their BC risk pre-result as low or average, respectively. Thirty-five percent adjusted their perceived risk to align more closely with their predicted risk. Predictors of perceived risk post-result: perceived risk pre-result, predicted risk, ethnicity and having regular menstruation. Participants who underestimated their BC risk were nearly eight times more likely to have low confidence in the accuracy of their predicted risk (OR for underestimation vs. accurate perception: 7.94 [95% CI 5.60-11.28]). Predictors of perceived risk post-result: perceived risk pre-result, predicted risk, ethnicity and having regular menstruation. Confidence in risk prediction was lowest when women's perceived risk pre-result was lower than their predicted risk (OR
conclusionMany women underestimated their BC risk, and their initial perceptions were influenced by the knowledge of their predicted risk. Women who underestimated their risk had less confidence in their predicted risk scores.
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.