SynthesisAmerican journal of surgery2025
Risk assessment tools for women with breast atypia: A systematic review.
Synthesis in American journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Management of high-risk (B3) breast lesions in symptomatic practice: evidence review and practical recommendations for multidisciplinary care.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBreast atypia is a benign breast disease found in a minority of percutaneous biopsies and is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Risk assessment calculators/tools have variable performance in this subgroup. We systematically reviewed tools developed or validated for women with breast atypia to guide clinicians and inform future model development.
methodsWe searched three databases for original studies published prior to November 13, 2023, that investigated the development or validation of risk assessment tools in atypia patients. PROBAST was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability.
resultsFrom 6252 records, 12 studies (1993-2022) were included (91.6 % U.S.-based; median sample size 540). The Gail model (C-index 0.5) and Tyrer-Cuzick model (0.49-0.54) performed poorly. Newer models demonstrated improved calibration (0.59-0.68), though 41.6 % had high risk of bias.
conclusionsCurrent tools inadequately predict breast cancer risk in atypia patients. Novel, population-specific models are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.