Mammographic Breast Density Response to Aromatase Inhibition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Mammographic breast density (MBD) is decreased by tamoxifen, but the effect of aromatase inhibitors is less clear. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We enrolled early-stage postmenopausal patients with breast cancer initiating adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy and ascertained mammograms before and at an average 10 months of aromatase inhibitor therapy. We matched cases to healthy postmenopausal women (controls) from a large mammography screening cohort on age, baseline body mass index, baseline MBD, and interval between mammograms. We estimated change in MBD using a computer-assisted thresholding program (Cumulus) and compared differences between cases and matched controls. RESULTS: In predominantly White women (96%), we found 14% of the 387 eligible cases had a MBD reduction of at least 5% after an average of 10 months of aromatase inhibitor therapy. MBD reductions were associated with higher baseline MBD, aromatase inhibitor use for more than 12 months, and prior postmenopausal hormone use. Comparing each case with her matched control, there was no evidence of an association of change in MBD with aromatase inhibitor therapy [median case-control difference among 369 pairs was -0.1% (10th and 90th percentile: -5.9%, 5.2%) P = 0.51]. Case-control differences were similar by type of aromatase inhibitor (P's 0.41 and 0.56); prior use of postmenopausal hormones (P = 0.85); baseline MBD (P = 0.55); and length of aromatase inhibitor therapy (P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women treated with aromatase inhibitors, 14% of cases had a MBD reduction of more than 5%, but these decreases did not differ from matched controls. These data suggest that MBD is not a clinically useful biomarker for predicting the value of aromatase inhibitor therapy in White postmenopausal women.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".