The myth of the 50‐50 breast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: For dosimetry and for work in optimization of x-ray imaging of the breast, it is commonly assumed that the breast is composed of 50% fibroglandular tissue and 50% fat. The purpose of this study was to assess whether this assumption was realistic. METHODS: First, data obtained from an experimental breast CT scanner were used to validate an algorithm that measures breast density from digitized film mammograms. Density results obtained from a total of 2831 women, including 191 women receiving CT and from mammograms of 2640 women from three other groups, were then used to estimate breast compositions. RESULTS: Mean compositions, expressed as percent fibroglandular tissue (including the skin), varied from 13.7% to 25.6% among the groups with an overall mean of 19.3%. The mean compressed breast thickness for the mammograms was 5.9 cm (sigma = 1.6 cm). 80% of the women in our study had volumetric breast density less than 27% and 95% were below 45%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results obtained from the four groups of women in our study, the "50-50" breast is not a representative model of the breast composition.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".