Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40500782›Full record

ArticleHuman genomics2025

Improved breast cancer risk prediction using chromosomal-scale length variation.

Yasaman Fatapour, James P Brody

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human genomics, 2025. 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

2 authors.

Yasaman FatapourDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Irvine, 3120 Natural Sciences II, 92697, Irvine, CA, USA.
James P BrodyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Irvine, 3120 Natural Sciences II, 92697, Irvine, CA, USA. jpbrody@uci.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEarly diagnosis of breast cancer leads to higher long-term survival rates. The development of a germline genetic test, or polygenic risk score, to identify women at high risk of breast cancer holds the potential to reduce cancer deaths. However, current tests based on SNPs do not perform much better than predictions based on family history and perform significantly worse in populations with non-European ancestry. We have developed an alternative method to characterize a genome, called chromosomal-scale length variation, which can be applied to polygenic risk scores.

objectiveThe objective of this paper is to characterize a breast cancer genetic risk score based on chromosomal-scale length variation using the NIH All of Us dataset in different self-identified racial groups when trained on different populations.

methodsWe used the NIH All of Us dataset to compile a dataset with 4,533 women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer (including 440 who self-identified as Black) and 44,518 women who have not. We acquired, through All of Us, genetic information for each of these women. We computed a set of 88 values for each woman in the dataset, representing the chromosomal-scale length variation parameters. These numbers are average log R ratios for four different segments from each of the 22 autosomes. We used machine learning algorithms to find a model that best differentiates the women with breast cancer from the women without breast cancer based on the set of 88 numbers that characterize each woman's germline genome.

resultsThe best model had an AUC of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.67-0.73) in the All of Us population. Women who scored in the top quintile by this model were nine times more likely to have breast cancer when compared to women who scored in the lowest quintile.

conclusionIn conclusion, we found that this method of computing genetic risk scores for breast cancer is a substantial improvement over SNP-based polygenic risk scores. In addition, we compared models trained on populations of only White women and only Black women. We found that the models trained only on White women performed better than models trained only on Black women when tested on only White women. We did not see a significant difference between the two models when tested on only Black women.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseFemaleHumansMultifactorial InheritancePolymorphism, Single NucleotideRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID40500782
PMCPMC12160350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.