Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 364

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Breast cancer molecular profiling with single sample predictors: a retrospective analysis

Open access
Weigelt, Britta, Mackay, Alan, A'hern, Roger, Natrajan, Rachael, Tan, David SP, Dowsett, Mitch, Ashworth, Alan, Reis-Filho, Jorge S·2010·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Microarray expression profiling classifies breast cancer into five molecular subtypes: luminal A, luminal B, basal-like, HER2, and normal breast-like. Three microarray-based single sample predictors (SSPs) have been used to define molecular classification of individual samples. We aimed to establish agreement between these SSPs for identification of breast cancer molecular subtypes. METHODS: Previously described microarray-based SSPs were applied to one in-house (n=53) and three publicly available (n=779) breast cancer datasets. Agreement was analysed between SSPs for the whole classification system and for the five molecular subtypes individually in each cohort. FINDINGS: Fair-to-substantial agreement between every pair of SSPs in each cohort was recorded (kappa=0.238-0.740). Of the five molecular subtypes, only basal-like cancers consistently showed almost-perfect agreement (kappa>0.812). The proportion of cases classified as basal-like in each cohort was consistent irrespective of the SSP used; however, the proportion of each remaining molecular subtype varied substantially. Assignment of individual cases to luminal A, luminal B, HER2, and normal breast-like subtypes was dependent on the SSP used. The significance of associations with outcome of each molecular subtype, other than basal-like and luminal A, varied depending on SSP used. However, different SSPs produced broadly similar survival curves. INTERPRETATION: Although every SSP identifies molecular subtypes with similar survival, they do not reliably assign the same patients to the same molecular subtypes. For molecular subtype classification to be incorporated into routine clinical practice and treatment decision making, stringent standardisation of methodologies and definitions for identification of breast cancer molecular subtypes is needed. FUNDING: Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Cancer Research UK.

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 · 10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70008-5

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 364

Metadata

Authors
Weigelt, B., Mackay, A., A'hern, R., Natrajan, R., Tan, D. S., Dowsett, M., Ashworth, A., & Reis-Filho, J. S.
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-04
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
339-349
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2145552137
Cited by
364
References
2
FWCI
15.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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 molecular profiling with single sample predictors: a retrospective analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70008-5
The paper
Weigelt, B., Mackay, A., A'hern, R., Natrajan, R., Tan, D. S., Dowsett, M., Ashworth, A., & Reis-Filho, J. S. (2010). Breast cancer molecular profiling with single sample predictors: a retrospective analysis. The Lancet Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70008-5

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.