Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40684451›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of medicine2025

Development and performance of female breast cancer incidence risk prediction models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liyuan Liu, Peng Zhou, Lijuan Hou, Chunyu Kao, Ziyu Zhang, Di Wang, Lixiang Yu, Fei Wang, Yongjiu Wang, Zhigang Yu

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

10 authors.

Liyuan LiuDepartment of Statistical Evaluation, Medical Management Service Center of Health Commission of Shandong Province, Jinan, China.
Peng ZhouDepartment of Breast Surgery, The Second Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Lijuan HouDepartment of Breast Surgery, The Second Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Chunyu KaoInstitute for Financial Studies, Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Ziyu ZhangSchool of Mathematics, Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Di WangSchool of Mathematics, Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Lixiang YuDepartment of Breast Surgery, The Second Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Fei WangDepartment of Breast Surgery, The Second Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine Shandong University, Jinan, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0124-8062
Yongjiu WangDepartment of Breast Surgery, The Second Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Zhigang YuDepartment of Breast Surgery, The Second Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine Shandong University, Jinan, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3093-4491

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Breast NeoplasmsMachine LearningModels, StatisticalEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansIncidenceRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsBreast cancer risk predictionmachine learning modelsmeta-analysismodel calibration

Identifiers

PMID40684451
PMCPMC12278464

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.