MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995752721 · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604635

Mammographic density, lobular involution, and risk of breast cancer

2008· review· en· W1995752721 on OpenAlexaff
Ophira Ginsburg, Lisa J. Martin, Norman F. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvolution (esoterism)Breast cancerBreast tissueMammographyMedicineOncologyInternal medicineBiologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this review, we propose that age-related changes in mammographic density and breast tissue involution are closely related phenomena, and consider their potential relevance to the aetiology of breast cancer. We propose that the reduction in mammographic density that occurs with increasing age, parity and menopause reflects the involution of breast tissue. We further propose that age-related changes in both mammographic density and breast tissue composition are observable and measurable phenomena that resemble Pike's theoretical construct of 'breast tissue ageing'. Extensive mammographic density and delayed breast involution are both associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and are consistent with the hypothesis of the Pike model that cumulative exposure of breast tissue to hormones and growth factors that stimulate cell division, as well as the accumulation of genetic damage in breast cells, are major determinants of breast cancer incidence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations110
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicDigital Radiography and Breast ImagingFrench-language works237,207