Response: Re: Breast Tissue Composition and Susceptibility to Breast Cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Colin and Schott raise a number of issues related to mammographic density and risk of breast cancer, which was the subject of our recent review. They point out that variations in mammographic technique may influence the appearance of density. However, despite this potential source of variation, there has been great consistency in descriptions of the association between mammographic density and the risk of breast cancer. This consistency is seen across countries, study designs, methods of assessing density, subsets of women defined by age and menopausal status ( 1 ), screening programs ( 2 ), and time ( 2 , 3 ). The risk of breast cancer associated with mammographic density at a single point in time has been shown to persist for at least 10 years ( 3 ), is present in both screen-detected and interval breast cancers ( 2 ), and cannot be explained by the “masking” of breast cancer by dense breast tissue. Their statement that “a recent study using MRI suggests that there is no correlation between mammographic density and qualitatively assessed fibroglandular tissue in women with dense breasts” is misleading. In the study cited, in all 35 women examined, the R2 for two-dimensional percent mammographic density and three-dimensional percent mammographic density by magnetic resonance was .667 ( P < .001), and, thus, the square root— R —is .82 [figure 7 in ( 4 )]. In the subset of women with the highest breast density, R2 was .26 ( P < .017), and R is .51. As pointed out in our review, mammography does have limitations as a method of assessing breast density, and current breast density data based on mammography may underestimate the associated risk of breast cancer. We describe ultrasound tomography and magnetic resonance as potential alternatives to mammography that are capable of generating quantitative three-dimensional measures of breast tissue. Additional approaches are under development by others. However, it is abundantly clear that the subjective and qualitative methods of assessing two-dimensional breast density that are now in routine use in a large number of mammographic screening centers in the United States can provide useful information about breast cancer risk ( 5 ), and the use of this information in the prevention of breast cancer is now being advocated ( 6 ). The development of automated, quantitative, volumetric methods of assessing breast tissue composition is in progress. In the meantime, it would be unfortunate if, as Colin and Schott assert, physicians were unable to acknowledge this risk factor for breast cancer and, to paraphrase Voltaire, allowed the best to be the enemy of the good.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».