Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,341

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Concordance among Gene-Expression–Based Predictors for Breast Cancer

Open access
Fan, Cheng, Oh, Daniel S., Wessels, Lodewyk, Weigelt, Britta, Nuyten, Dimitry S.A., Nobel, Andrew B., van't Veer, Laura J., Perou, Charles M.·2006·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gene-expression-profiling studies of primary breast tumors performed by different laboratories have resulted in the identification of a number of distinct prognostic profiles, or gene sets, with little overlap in terms of gene identity. METHODS: To compare the predictions derived from these gene sets for individual samples, we obtained a single data set of 295 samples and applied five gene-expression-based models: intrinsic subtypes, 70-gene profile, wound response, recurrence score, and the two-gene ratio (for patients who had been treated with tamoxifen). RESULTS: We found that most models had high rates of concordance in their outcome predictions for the individual samples. In particular, almost all tumors identified as having an intrinsic subtype of basal-like, HER2-positive and estrogen-receptor-negative, or luminal B (associated with a poor prognosis) were also classified as having a poor 70-gene profile, activated wound response, and high recurrence score. The 70-gene and recurrence-score models, which are beginning to be used in the clinical setting, showed 77 to 81 percent agreement in outcome classification. CONCLUSIONS: Even though different gene sets were used for prognostication in patients with breast cancer, four of the five tested showed significant agreement in the outcome predictions for individual patients and are probably tracking a common set of biologic phenotypes.

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa052933

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,341

Metadata

Authors
Fan, C., Oh, D. S., Wessels, L., Weigelt, B., Nuyten, D. S. A., Nobel, A. B., van't Veer, L. J., & Perou, C. M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2006-08-10
Volume
355
Issue
6
Pages
560-569
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2074465378
Cited by
1,341
References
1
FWCI
49.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Concordance among Gene-Expression–Based Predictors for Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa052933
The paper
Fan, C., Oh, D. S., Wessels, L., Weigelt, B., Nuyten, D. S. A., Nobel, A. B., van't Veer, L. J., & Perou, C. M. (2006). Concordance among Gene-Expression–Based Predictors for Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa052933

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.