ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2026
External validation of PREDICT Breast v3.1 for overall survival in international cohorts, including young and invasive lobular subgroups.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePREDICT Breast is an online tool that provides survival predictions for patients with early-stage breast cancer, for different treatments after surgery. External validation is essential to assess model performance across populations and healthcare settings. We aimed to externally validate PREDICT using clinical practice data from the Netherlands, Sweden, and Slovenia.
methodsWe validated PREDICT in national populations (Netherlands, N = 221,636; Sweden, N = 84,928) and in two specific subgroups: patients with invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) (Netherlands, N = 26,834; Sweden, N = 10,563; Slovenia, N = 341) and patients aged ≤ 40 years (Netherlands, N = 9995; Sweden, N = 2694). We assessed discrimination with the 10-year area under the curve (AUC) and calibration of 10-year mortality predictions through calibration plots, intercepts and slopes.
resultsPREDICT v3.1 discriminated well in the national populations (Netherlands AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.75-0.76; Sweden 0.75, 95% CI 0.75-0.76), with similar discrimination in ILC patients (Netherlands 0.76, 95% CI 0.74-0.76; Sweden 0.75, 95% CI 0.73-0.77; Slovenia 0.78, 95% CI 0.71-0.83). Calibration showed slight underestimation of mortality risk in the Netherlands (intercept 0.13; slope 1.01), and was near perfect in the Swedish population (intercept 0.04; slope 1.05). Amongst ILC patients, we observed some underestimation of mortality (Netherlands intercept 0.20; Sweden intercept 0.10; Slovenia intercept 0.02). In young patients, miscalibration was observed (Netherlands, intercept 0.21, slope 0.79; Sweden, intercept 0.08, slope 0.85).
conclusionPREDICT v3.1 is generally well calibrated and suitable for clinical use in the evaluated European populations. Efforts to improve PREDICT should focus on more accurate predictions for younger patients.
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.