Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer by adiposity: An analysis of four case‐control studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association of mammographic breast density with breast cancer risk may vary by adiposity. To examine effect modification by body mass index (BMI), the authors standardized mammographic density data from four case-control studies (1994-2002) conducted in California, Hawaii and Minnesota and Gifu, Japan. The 1,699 cases and 2,422 controls included 45% Caucasians, 40% Asians and 9% African-Americans. Using ethnic-specific BMI cut points, 34% were classified as overweight and 19% as obese. A single reader assessed density from mammographic images using a computer-assisted method. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) while adjusting for potential confounders. Modest heterogeneity in the relation between percent density and breast cancer risk across studies was observed (p(heterogeneity) = 0.08). Cases had a greater age-adjusted mean percent density than controls: 31.7% versus 28.5%, respectively (p <0.001). Relative to <20 percent density, the ORs for >35 were similar across BMI groups whereas the OR for 20-35 was slightly higher in overweight (OR = 1.69, 95% CI: 1.28, 2.24) and obese (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.12, 2.33) than in normal weight women (OR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.11, 2.01). Furthermore, limited evidence of effect modification by BMI of the OR per 10% increase in percent density (p(interaction) = 0.06) was observed, including subgroup analyses by menopausal status and in analyses that excluded women at the extremes of the BMI scale. Our findings indicate little, if any, modification by BMI of the effects of breast density on breast cancer risk.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".