Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 160

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Breast cancer risk prediction using a clinical risk model and polygenic risk score

Open access
Shieh, Yiwey, Hu, Donglei, Ma, Lin, Huntsman, Scott, Gard, Charlotte C., Leung, Jessica W. T., Tice, Jeffrey A., Vachon, Celine M., Cummings, Steven R., Kerlikowske, Karla, Ziv, Elad·2016·Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Abstract

Breast cancer risk assessment can inform the use of screening and prevention modalities. We investigated the performance of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model in combination with a polygenic risk score (PRS) comprised of 83 single nucleotide polymorphisms identified from genome-wide association studies. We conducted a nested case–control study of 486 cases and 495 matched controls within a screening cohort. The PRS was calculated using a Bayesian approach. The contributions of the PRS and variables in the BCSC model to breast cancer risk were tested using conditional logistic regression. Discriminatory accuracy of the models was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Increasing quartiles of the PRS were positively associated with breast cancer risk, with OR 2.54 (95 % CI 1.69–3.82) for breast cancer in the highest versus lowest quartile. In a multivariable model, the PRS, family history, and breast density remained strong risk factors. The AUROC of the PRS was 0.60 (95 % CI 0.57–0.64), and an Asian-specific PRS had AUROC 0.64 (95 % CI 0.53–0.74). A combined model including the BCSC risk factors and PRS had better discrimination than the BCSC model (AUROC 0.65 versus 0.62, p = 0.01). The BCSC-PRS model classified 18 % of cases as high-risk (5-year risk ≥3 %), compared with 7 % using the BCSC model. The PRS improved discrimination of the BCSC risk model and classified more cases as high-risk. Further consideration of the PRS’s role in decision-making around screening and prevention strategies is merited.

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 · 10.1007/s10549-016-3953-2

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 160

Metadata

Authors
Shieh, Y., Hu, D., Ma, L., Huntsman, S., Gard, C. C., Leung, J. W. T., Tice, J. A., Vachon, C. M., Cummings, S. R., Kerlikowske, K., & Ziv, E.
Venue
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published
2016-08-26
Volume
159
Issue
3
Pages
513-525
ISSN
  • 0167-6806 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7217
OpenAlex
W2513145707
Cited by
160
References
3
FWCI
9.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Breast cancer risk prediction using a clinical risk model and polygenic risk score. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10549-016-3953-2
The paper
Shieh, Y., Hu, D., Ma, L., Huntsman, S., Gard, C. C., Leung, J. W. T., Tice, J. A., Vachon, C. M., Cummings, S. R., Kerlikowske, K., & Ziv, E. (2016). Breast cancer risk prediction using a clinical risk model and polygenic risk score. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3953-2

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.