ArticleJCO precision oncology2026
Modeling Individual-Level Uncertainty From Missing Data in Multifactorial Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMultifactorial breast cancer (BC) risk prediction models use a range of predictors to estimate an individual's chance of developing BC. Data on risk factors are often incomplete, and point estimates calculated when data are missing can mask considerable uncertainty. Quantifying this uncertainty is critical for effective risk communication.
methodsWe used Monte Carlo simulation methods to estimate the distribution of 10-year BC risk for individuals with missing data, using the BOADICEA multifactorial model as an example. Multivariate imputation by chained equations with large representative reference data sets was used to sample missing covariates. We developed a framework for estimating the uncertainty distribution, uncertainty intervals (UIs), and probability of reclassification, which can be applied to any given individual with missing risk factor data. This was applied to estimating individual-level uncertainty distributions and quantifying the probability of reclassification when groups of risk factors are measured, for a range of example women.
resultsWomen with limited risk factor data had considerable uncertainty in their estimated BC risk, and 95% UIs spanned all risk categories. This was especially relevant for women classified as moderate-risk, such as those with strong family history or a moderate-risk pathogenic variant. Reclassification probability in this case was as high as 57.5%, with 95% UI of 0.9% to 9.3% for the 10-year risk from age 40 years. Risk certainty improved with additional data collection, particularly genetic information or mammographic density measurement.
conclusionOur results demonstrate that, in some cases, there is considerable probability of reclassification after collecting missing data. Methodology presented here can identify situations where it would be most beneficial to collect additional information, to enable better informed clinical decision making.
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.