Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 765

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

Validation Studies for Models Projecting the Risk of Invasive and Total Breast Cancer Incidence

Open access
Costantino, J. P., Gail, M. H., Pee, D., Anderson, S., Redmond, C. K., Benichou, J., Wieand, H. S.·1999·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 1989, Gail and colleagues developed a model for estimating the risk of breast cancer in women participating in a program of annual mammographic screening (designated herein as model 1). A modification of this model to project the absolute risk of developing only invasive breast cancer is referred to herein as model 2. We assessed the validity of both models by employing data from women enrolled in the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial. METHODS: We used data from 5969 white women who were at least 35 years of age and without a history of breast cancer. These women were in the placebo arm of the trial and were screened annually. The average follow-up period was 48.4 months. We compared the observed number of breast cancers with the predicted numbers from the models. RESULTS: In terms of absolute risk, the ratios of total expected to observed numbers of cancers (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were 0.84 (0. 73-0.97) for model 1 and 1.03 (0.88-1.21) for model 2, respectively. Within the age groups of 49 years or less, 50-59 years, and 60 years or more, the ratios of expected to observed numbers of breast cancers (95% CIs) for model 1 were 0.91 (0.73-1.14), 0.96 (0.73-1. 28), and 0.66 (0.52-0.86), respectively. Thus, model 1 underestimated breast cancer risk in women more than 59 years of age. For model 2, the risk ratios (95% CIs) were 0.93 (0.72-1.22), 1.13 (0.83-1.55), and 1.05 (0.80-1.41), respectively. Both models exhibited a tendency to overestimate risk for women classified in the higher quintiles of predicted 5-year risk and to underestimate risk for those in the lower quintiles of the same. CONCLUSION: Despite some limitations, these methods provide useful information on breast cancer risk for women who plan to participate in an annual mammographic screening program.

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 · 10.1093/jnci/91.18.1541

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 765

Metadata

Authors
Costantino, J. P., Gail, M. H., Pee, D., Anderson, S., Redmond, C. K., Benichou, J., & Wieand, H. S.
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
1999-09-15
Volume
91
Issue
18
Pages
1541-1548
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2101457306
Cited by
765
References
1
FWCI
8.11
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: Validation Studies for Models Projecting the Risk of Invasive and Total Breast Cancer Incidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/91.18.1541
The paper
Costantino, J. P., Gail, M. H., Pee, D., Anderson, S., Redmond, C. K., Benichou, J., & Wieand, H. S. (1999). Validation Studies for Models Projecting the Risk of Invasive and Total Breast Cancer Incidence. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/91.18.1541

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.