Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 463

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prospective Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model for Women Undergoing Screening Mammography

Barlow, William E., White, Emily, Ballard-Barbash, Rachel, Vacek, Pamela M., Titus-Ernstoff, Linda, Carney, Patricia A., Tice, Jeffrey A., Buist, Diana S. M., Geller, Berta M., Rosenberg, Robert, Yankaskas, Bonnie C., Kerlikowske, Karla·2006·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Risk prediction models for breast cancer can be improved by the addition of recently identified risk factors, including breast density and use of hormone therapy. We used prospective risk information to predict a diagnosis of breast cancer in a cohort of 1 million women undergoing screening mammography. METHODS: There were 2,392,998 eligible screening mammograms from women without previously diagnosed breast cancer who had had a prior mammogram in the preceding 5 years. Within 1 year of the screening mammogram, 11,638 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Separate logistic regression risk models were constructed for premenopausal and postmenopausal examinations by use of a stringent (P<.0001) criterion for the inclusion of risk factors. Risk models were constructed with 75% of the data and validated with the remaining 25%. Concordance of the predicted with the observed outcomes was assessed by a concordance (c) statistic after logistic regression model fit. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Statistically significant risk factors for breast cancer diagnosis among premenopausal women included age, breast density, family history of breast cancer, and a prior breast procedure. For postmenopausal women, the statistically significant factors included age, breast density, race, ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, a prior breast procedure, body mass index, natural menopause, hormone therapy, and a prior false-positive mammogram. The model may identify high-risk women better than the Gail model, although predictive accuracy was only moderate. The c statistics were 0.631 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.618 to 0.644) for premenopausal women and 0.624 (95% CI = 0.619 to 0.630) for postmenopausal women. CONCLUSION: Breast density is a strong additional risk factor for breast cancer, although it is unknown whether reduction in breast density would reduce risk. Our risk model may be able to identify women at high risk for breast cancer for preventive interventions or more intensive surveillance.

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/djj331

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 463

Metadata

Authors
Barlow, W. E., White, E., Ballard-Barbash, R., Vacek, P. M., Titus-Ernstoff, L., Carney, P. A., Tice, J. A., Buist, D. S. M., Geller, B. M., Rosenberg, R., Yankaskas, B. C., & Kerlikowske, K.
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2006-09-06
Volume
98
Issue
17
Pages
1204-1214
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2099644906
Cited by
463
References
6
FWCI
27.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Prospective Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model for Women Undergoing Screening Mammography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djj331
The paper
Barlow, W. E., White, E., Ballard-Barbash, R., Vacek, P. M., Titus-Ernstoff, L., Carney, P. A., Tice, J. A., Buist, D. S. M., Geller, B. M., Rosenberg, R., Yankaskas, B. C., & Kerlikowske, K. (2006). Prospective Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model for Women Undergoing Screening Mammography. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj331

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.