No Association Between 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Mammographic Density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing evidence that vitamin D may protect against breast cancer. Some studies have suggested that dietary and supplemental vitamin D is associated with reduced mammographic density, which is highly associated with breast cancer risk, although this evidence is not entirely consistent. We investigated a possible association between circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD), the best indicator of vitamin D status, and quantitative mammographic density in the Minnesota Breast Cancer Family Study. Mean values of mammographic density (both percent and area densities) and circulating levels of 25OHD were compared across categories of covariates using ANOVA. Models were adjusted for age and body mass index, as well as other covariates, and also stratified by dietary calcium intake, menopause, and season. Serum, mammographic density, and questionnaire data were available from 487 women [133 premenopausal and 354 postmenopausal; mean age, 56.4 years (range, 27-85 years)] without breast cancer, and for 73%, the blood was drawn within 1 year of their mammogram. No evidence was found for an association between 25OHD and either percent density or total dense area. There was also no evidence for any association when the data were stratified by season of sample (winter and summer) or menopause. However, both percent density and dense area were lowest among those in the highest vitamin D quartile with calcium intake above the median. Unlike some previous reports, vitamin D does not seem to be related to mammographic density in this cohort.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".