Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 304

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

Newman, Lisa A., Kaljee, Linda M.·2017·JAMA Surgery

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0005

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 304

Metadata

Authors
Newman, L. A., & Kaljee, L. M.
Venue
JAMA Surgery
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.