The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Health Disparities and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in African American Women: A Review
Abstract
Importance: Variation in cancer incidence and outcome has well-documented correlations with racial/ethnic identity. In the United States, the possible genetic and ancestral hereditary explanations for these associations are confounded by socioeconomic, cultural, and lifestyle patterns. Differences in the breast cancer burden of African American compared with European/white American women represent one of the most notable examples of disparities in oncology related to racial/ethnic identity. Elucidating the source of these associations is imperative in achieving the promise of the national Precision Medicine Initiative. Observations: Population-based breast cancer mortality rates have been higher for African American compared with white American women since the early 1980s, largely reflecting declines in mortality that have been disproportionately experienced among white American patients and at least partly explained by the advent of endocrine therapy that is less effective in African American women because of the higher prevalence of estrogen receptor-negative disease. The increased risk of triple-negative breast cancer in African American women as well as western, sub-Saharan African women compared with white American, European, and east African women furthermore suggests that selected genetic components of geographically defined African ancestry are associated with hereditary susceptibility for specific patterns of mammary carcinogenesis. Disentangling health care access barriers, as well as reproductive, lifestyle, and dietary factors from genetic contributions to breast cancer disparities remains challenging. Epigenetics and experiences of societal inequality (allostatic load) increase the complexity of studying breast cancer risk related to racial/ethnic identity. Conclusions and Relevance: Oncologic anthropology represents a transdisciplinary field of research that can combine the expertise of population geneticists, multispecialty oncologists, molecular epidemiologists, and behavioral scientists to eliminate breast cancer disparities related to racial/ethnic identity and advance knowledge related to the pathogenesis of triple-negative breast cancer.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mersha, T. B., & Abebe, T. (2015) · Human Genomics · doi:10.1186/s40246-014-0023-x · Cited by 450
Cited by
Jeong, J. J., Vey, B. L., Bhimireddy, A., Kim, T., Santos, T., Correa, R., Dutt, R., Mosunjac, M., Oprea-Ilies, G., Smith, G., et al. (2023) · Radiology Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1148/ryai.220047 · Cited by 92
Martini, R., Newman, L., & Davis, M. (2022) · Clinical & Experimental Metastasis · doi:10.1007/s10585-021-10087-x · Cited by 46
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Newman, L. A., & Kaljee, L. M.
- Venue
- JAMA Surgery
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2017-05-01
- Volume
- 152
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 485
- ISSN
- 2168-6254 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2600129852
- Cited by
- 304
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Health Disparities and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in African American Women: A Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0005
- The paper
- Newman, L. A., & Kaljee, L. M. (2017). Health Disparities and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in African American Women: A Review. JAMA Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0005
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.