Is There a Difference in the Association between Percent Mammographic Density and Subtypes of Breast Cancer? Luminal A and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mammographic density is a potentially modifiable risk factor for breast cancer. To what extent mammographic density is a predictor for both hormone receptor-positive and hormone receptor-negative tumors is unclear. Even less is known about whether mammographic density predicts subtypes of breast cancer defined by expression status of the three receptors: estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2). METHODS: We estimated the association of percent mammographic density with subtypes of invasive breast cancer among 479 population-based female breast cancer patients and 376 control subjects ages 35 to 64 years. The expression status of ER, PR, and HER-2 was assessed using immunohistochemistry methods in a single laboratory. We considered ER+ or PR+ plus HER-2- tumors as luminal A breast cancer and ER-/PR-/HER-2- tumors as triple-negative breast cancer. We used unconditional logistic regression methods to estimate odd ratios (95% confidence intervals) for both case-control and case-case comparisons. RESULTS: Mammographic density was associated with increased risk of both invasive breast cancer subtypes, luminal A and triple-negative, in the case-control analysis. Results from case-case comparisons yielded no differences between the two subtypes among all women combined or in analyses done separately by race (White versus African American women) or menopausal status (premenopausal versus postmenopausal women; all P values > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that percent mammographic density is positively associated with both luminal A and triple-negative 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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it