Mammographic density: a hormonally responsive risk factor for breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammographic density refers to radiologically dense breast tissue, and reflects variations in the tissue composition of the breast. It is positively associated with collagen and epithelial and non-epithelial cells, and negatively associated with fat. There is extensive evidence that mammographic density is a risk factor for breast cancer, independent of other risk factors, and is associated with large relative and attributable risks for the disease. The epidemiology of mammographic density, notably the inverse association with age, is consistent with it being a marker of susceptibility to breast cancer. Cumulative exposure to mammographic density may be an important determinant of the age-specific incidence of breast cancer in the population. All risk factors for breast cancer must ultimately exert their influence by an effect on the breast, and these findings suggest that, for at least some risk factors, this influence includes an effect on the number of cells and the quantity of collagen in the breast, which is reflected in differences in mammographic density. Many of the genetic and environmental factors that influence the risk of breast cancer affect the proliferative activity and quantity of stromal and epithelial tissue in the breast, and these effects are reflected in differences in mammographic density among women of the same age. Some of these influences include endogenous and exogenous hormones, and the menopause. A better understanding of the factors that influence the response of breast tissue to these hormonal exposures may lead to an improved understanding of the aetiology of mammographic density and of breast cancer.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".