Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30178398›Full record

ReviewCancer causes & control : CCC2018

Review of non-clinical risk models to aid prevention of breast cancer.

Kawthar Al-Ajmi, Artitaya Lophatananon, Martin Yuille, William Ollier, Kenneth R Muir

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Epigenetic Biomarkers for Environmental Exposures and Personalized Breast Cancer Prevention.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Kawthar Al-AjmiDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Centre for Epidemiology, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M139 PL, UK.
Artitaya LophatananonDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Centre for Epidemiology, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M139 PL, UK.
Martin YuilleDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Centre for Epidemiology, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M139 PL, UK.
William OllierDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Centre for Epidemiology, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M139 PL, UK.
Kenneth R MuirDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Centre for Epidemiology, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M139 PL, UK. kenneth.muir@manchester.ac.uk.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 19169Cancer Research UK C18281/A19169Medical Research Council G0100594Medical Research Council G0600237Medical Research Council G0901461
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A disease risk model is a statistical method which assesses the probability that an individual will develop one or more diseases within a stated period of time. Such models take into account the presence or absence of specific epidemiological risk factors associated with the disease and thereby potentially identify individuals at higher risk. Such models are currently used clinically to identify people at higher risk, including identifying women who are at increased risk of developing breast cancer. Many genetic and non-genetic breast cancer risk models have been developed previously. We have evaluated existing non-genetic/non-clinical models for breast cancer that incorporate modifiable risk factors. This review focuses on risk models that can be used by women themselves in the community in the absence of clinical risk factors characterization. The inclusion of modifiable factors in these models means that they can be used to improve primary prevention and health education pertinent for breast cancer. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Fourteen studies were eligible for review with sample sizes ranging from 654 to 248,407 participants. All models reviewed had acceptable calibration measures, with expected/observed (E/O) ratios ranging from 0.79 to 1.17. However, discrimination measures were variable across studies with concordance statistics (C-statistics) ranging from 0.56 to 0.89. We conclude that breast cancer risk models that include modifiable risk factors have been well calibrated but have less ability to discriminate. The latter may be a consequence of the omission of some significant risk factors in the models or from applying models to studies with limited sample sizes. More importantly, external validation is missing for most of the models. Generalization across models is also problematic as some variables may not be considered applicable to some populations and each model performance is conditioned by particular population characteristics. In conclusion, it is clear that there is still a need to develop a more reliable model for estimating breast cancer risk which has a good calibration, ability to accurately discriminate high risk and with better generalizability across populations.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansRisk FactorsAssessment risk toolCalibrationConcordance and E/O statisticsDiscriminationRisk factorsRisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID30178398
PMCPMC6182451

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.