↓ Skip to main content

Validation of Rosner–Colditz breast cancer incidence model using an independent data set, the California Teachers Study

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Validation of Rosner–Colditz breast cancer incidence model using an independent data set, the California Teachers Study
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, October 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10549-013-2719-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. A. Rosner, G. A. Colditz, S. E. Hankinson, J. Sullivan-Halley, J. V. Lacey, L. Bernstein

Abstract

To validate an established breast cancer incidence model in an independent prospective data set. After aligning time periods for follow-up, we restricted populations to comparable age ranges (47-74 years), and followed them for incident invasive breast cancer (follow-up 1994-2008, Nurses' Health Study [NHS]; and 1995-2009, California Teachers Study [CTS]). We identified 2026 cases during 540,617 person years of follow-up in NHS, and 1,400 cases during 288,111 person years in CTS. We fit the Rosner-Colditz log-incidence model and the Gail model using baseline data. We imputed future use of hormones based on type and prior duration of use and other covariates. We assessed performance using area under the curve (AUC) and calibration methods. Participants in the CTS had fewer children, were leaner, consumed more alcohol, and were more frequent users of postmenopausal hormones. Incidence rate ratios for breast cancer showed significantly higher breast cancer in the CTS (IRR = 1.32, 95 % CI 1.24-1.42). Parameters for the log-incidence model were comparable across the two cohorts. Overall, the NHS model performed equally well when applied in the CTS. In the NHS the AUC was 0.60 (s.e. 0.006) and applying the NHS betas to the CTS the performance in the independent data set (validation) was 0.586 (s.e. 0.009). The Gail model gave values of 0.547 (s.e. 0.008), a significant 4 % lower, p < 0.0001. For women 47-69 the AUC values for the log-incidence model are 0.608 in NHS and 0.609 in CTS; and for Gail are 0.569 and 0.572. In both cohorts, performance of both models dropped off in older women 70-87, and later in follow-up (6-12 years). Calibration showed good estimation against SEER with a non-significant 4 % underestimate of overall breast cancer incidence when applying the model in the CTS population (p = 0.098). The Rosner-Colditz model performs consistently well when applied in an independent data set. Performance is stronger predicting incidence among women 47-69 and over a 5-year time interval. AUC values exceed those for Gail by 3-5 % based on AUC when both are applied to the independent validation data set. Models may be further improved with addition of breast density or other markers of risk beyond the current model.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Master 5 9%
Professor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Computer Science 3 6%
Mathematics 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 December 2013.
All research outputs
#838,075
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#92
of 4,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,285
of 212,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#4
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,648 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 212,193 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.