SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Risk-based screening”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2025

Profile of the BREATHE cohort for risk-based breast screening in Singapore.

The BREAst screening Tailored for HEr (BREATHE) study was established to pilot a personalised, risk-based breast cancer screening programme for a multi-ethnic Asian population. Between October 2021 and December 2023, 4592 women aged 35-59 were enrolled (73% response rate). Follow-up from February 2022 to June 2024 included 4112 participants (8.6% loss to follow-up). Data collected encompassed demographics, lifestyle factors, reproductive risks, breast cancer awareness, screening behaviours, programme satisfaction, mammography outcomes (density and recall status), and genotype data. Above-average breast cancer risk increased with age: 2% in women aged 35-39, 31% in 40-49, and 42% in 50-59. Findings suggests that women valued the knowledge of their breast cancer risk and were motivated to attend mammography. The BREATHE study confirms the feasibility and acceptability of a personalised risk-based screening programme in a multi-ethnic Asian population, highlighting the value of tailored protocols to improve early detection and outcomes. Further details are available in the study protocol and online at https://blog.nus.edu.sg/breathe/ .

Humans↗

PubMed2025

Impact of personalised risk predictions on breast cancer risk perceptions: insights from the BREATHE study.

OBJECTIVE: Biennial mammography screening is well-established for women aged 50 and above, but guidelines for younger women are less clear. Risk-based screening may provide women with key information to make informed decisions about their breast cancer risk and screening. This study examines how predicted breast cancer (BC) risk shapes women's perception and confidence in risk prediction. METHODS: Women aged 35 to 59 years were recruited for a prospective multi-centre cohort and stratified into above-average, average, or below-average BC risk categories based on genetic and non-genetic risk factors. Perceived risk was assessed at enrolment and after participants were informed of their predicted risk. We used ordinal models to identify predictors of perceived risk and logistic regression to examine the relationship between changes in perceived risk and confidence in the risk prediction. RESULTS: At enrolment, 43% and 47% of 4112 participants perceived their BC risk pre-result as low or average, respectively. Thirty-five percent adjusted their perceived risk to align more closely with their predicted risk. Predictors of perceived risk post-result: perceived risk pre-result, predicted risk, ethnicity and having regular menstruation. Participants who underestimated their BC risk were nearly eight times more likely to have low confidence in the accuracy of their predicted risk (OR for underestimation vs. accurate perception: 7.94 [95% CI 5.60-11.28]). Predictors of perceived risk post-result: perceived risk pre-result, predicted risk, ethnicity and having regular menstruation. Confidence in risk prediction was lowest when women's perceived risk pre-result was lower than their predicted risk (OR-2 vs 0 [95%CI] 5.06 [3.67 to 6.97]). CONCLUSION: Many women underestimated their BC risk, and their initial perceptions were influenced by the knowledge of their predicted risk. Women who underestimated their risk had less confidence in their predicted risk scores.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Measurement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and other circulating lipids in Brazil: a systematic literature review.

Accurate laboratory assessment of circulating lipids underpins cardiovascular risk stratification, yet clinical interpretation depends not only on the assays but on the formula chosen to estimate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). This review integrates the 2019-2025 evidence on laboratory methods for triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TC), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), and on the formulas estimating LDL-C, VLDL-C, and non-HDL cholesterol, to determine how these should be measured, reported, and harmonized in Brazil, where lipid thresholds are adapted from international consensus. A PRISMA 2020 systematic search (PROSPERO CRD420251241064) of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, SciELO, LILACS, Web of Science, and Embase retrieved 57,915 records; after removing 38,210 duplicates, 19,705 titles/abstracts were screened, 312 full texts assessed, and 25 sources included. Enzymatic colorimetric assays remain standard for TG, TC, and HDLC. For LDL-C, Martin/Hopkins classifies more accurately than Friedewald (89.6% vs 83.2% correct categorization in 5,051,467 patients), particularly at high TG and low LDL-C, while Sampson/NIH and modified Sampson/NIH extend reliable estimation into hypertriglyceridemia and very low LDL-C; direct measurement is reserved for TG beyond the validated range. Although the review centers on the Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson/NIH families that dominate guideline practice, other published equations exist and are addressed in context. In Brazil, atherogenic-lipid thresholds are risk-based decision limits rather than reference intervals; national surveys describe lipid distributions but were not designed to establish them. Analytical standardization through traceability programs, multicenter validation of formulas, and-where the distribution-based construct applies (HDLC, pediatrics)-nationally derived reference intervals are priorities for equitable cardiovascular risk assessment in Brazil.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Machine learning-based clinical prediction model and multi-omics integration for assessing pancreatic cancer risk in new-onset diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Given that pancreatic cancer (PC) is typically diagnosed at an advanced stage but is often preceded by new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM), providing a window for early detection, we sought to develop and validate an interpretable machine-learning model integrated with multi-omics profiling to identify early biomarkers of NODM-associated PC. METHODS: In a population-based cohort, individuals with NODM-associated PC and NODM without PC were identified and randomly divided (70:30) into training and validation sets after feature selection. Eight machine learning (ML) classifiers were compared using fivefold cross-validation, and model performance was evaluated in terms of discrimination, calibration, and decision curve–based clinical utility. We evaluated interpretability using the Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) analyses. Mechanistically, Olink proteomic profiling and metabolomics were analyzed through clinical classifications and model-defined risk strata. RESULTS: Categorical boosting achieved the best performance in the independent validation set (AUROC = 0.844). The NODM cohort was stratified into high- (n = 2,362) and low-risk (n = 5,030) groups, and internal validation together with SHAP analyses demonstrated consistent model performance and identified clinically interpretable predictors. Proteomic and metabolomic analyses under clinical and risk-based grouping identified 39 overlapping differentially expressed proteins and 145 overlapping metabolites with enriched across 11 shared KEGG pathways. Cross-platform validation highlighted PLTP, CRTAC1, and ITGAV as serum biomarkers with a strong potential for early NODM-PC detection. CONCLUSIONS: We developed an interpretable ML framework centered on NODM enables practical risk stratification for early PC detection by multi-omics and provides a pathway of ML-based triage followed by biomarker confirmation for earlier detection and diagnosis.

Humans↗