SynthesisAnnals of medicine2025
Development and performance of female breast cancer incidence risk prediction models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence and Genomic Data Analysis: New Frontiers in Precision Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Differential Effects of 17β-Estradiol, Its Metabolites, and Cadmium on Cytotoxicity and Redox-Related Pathways in Doxorubicin-Sensitive and -Resistant Breast Cancer Cell Lines.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccurate breast cancer risk prediction is essential for early detection and personalized prevention strategies. While traditional models, such as Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick, are widely utilized, machine learning-based approaches may offer enhanced predictive performance. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare the accuracy of traditional statistical models and machine learning models in breast cancer risk prediction.
methodsA total of 144 studies from 27 countries were systematically reviewed, incorporating genetic, clinical, and imaging data. Pooled C-statistics were calculated to assess model discrimination, while observed-to-expected (O/E) ratios were used to evaluate calibration. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine heterogeneity and assess the influence of study bias across various populations.
resultsMachine learning-based models demonstrated superior performance, with a pooled C-statistic of 0.74, compared to 0.67 for traditional models. Models that integrated genetic and imaging data showed the highest levels of accuracy, although performance varied by population. Sensitivity analyses excluding high-bias studies showed improved discrimination in models incorporating genetic factors, with the pooled C-statistic increasing to 0.72. Traditional models, such as Gail, exhibited notably poor predictive accuracy in non-Western populations, as evidenced by a C-statistic of 0.543 in Chinese cohorts.
conclusionMachine learning models provide significantly greater predictive accuracy for breast cancer risk, particularly when incorporating multidimensional data. However, issues related to model generalizability and interpretability remain, particularly in diverse populations. Future research should focus on developing more interpretable models and expanding global validation efforts to improve model applicability across different demographic groups.
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.