Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 721

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors

Open access
Lee, Andrew, Mavaddat, Nasim, Wilcox, Amber N., Cunningham, Alex P., Carver, Tim, Hartley, Simon, Babb de Villiers, Chantal, Izquierdo, Angel, Simard, Jacques, Schmidt, Marjanka K., Walter, Fiona M., Chatterjee, Nilanjan, Garcia-Closas, Montserrat, Tischkowitz, Marc, Pharoah, Paul, Easton, Douglas F., Antoniou, Antonis C.·2019·Genetics in Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: Breast cancer (BC) risk prediction allows systematic identification of individuals at highest and lowest risk. We extend the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) risk model to incorporate the effects of polygenic risk scores (PRS) and other risk factors (RFs). METHODS: BOADICEA incorporates the effects of truncating variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM; a PRS based on 313 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) explaining 20% of BC polygenic variance; a residual polygenic component accounting for other genetic/familial effects; known lifestyle/hormonal/reproductive RFs; and mammographic density, while allowing for missing information. RESULTS: Among all factors considered, the predicted UK BC risk distribution is widest for the PRS, followed by mammographic density. The highest BC risk stratification is achieved when all genetic and lifestyle/hormonal/reproductive/anthropomorphic factors are considered jointly. With all factors, the predicted lifetime risks for women in the UK population vary from 2.8% for the 1st percentile to 30.6% for the 99th percentile, with 14.7% of women predicted to have a lifetime risk of ≥17-<30% (moderate risk according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] guidelines) and 1.1% a lifetime risk of ≥30% (high risk). CONCLUSION: This comprehensive model should enable high levels of BC risk stratification in the general population and women with family history, and facilitate individualized, informed decision-making on prevention therapies and screening.

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 · 10.1038/s41436-018-0406-9

Cites

38 of 38 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 38 references

Cited by

See all 721

Metadata

Authors
Lee, A., Mavaddat, N., Wilcox, A. N., Cunningham, A. P., Carver, T., Hartley, S., Babb de Villiers, C., Izquierdo, A., Simard, J., Schmidt, M. K., Walter, F. M., Chatterjee, N., Garcia-Closas, M., Tischkowitz, M., Pharoah, P., Easton, D. F., & Antoniou, A. C.
Venue
Genetics in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-08
Volume
21
Issue
8
Pages
1708-1718
ISSN
1098-3600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2909714593
Cited by
721
References
38
FWCI
42.26
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: BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41436-018-0406-9
The paper
Lee, A., Mavaddat, N., Wilcox, A. N., Cunningham, A. P., Carver, T., Hartley, S., Babb de Villiers, C., Izquierdo, A., Simard, J., Schmidt, M. K., Walter, F. M., Chatterjee, N., Garcia-Closas, M., Tischkowitz, M., Pharoah, P., Easton, D. F., & Antoniou, A. C. (2019). BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Genetics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0406-9

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.