Mammographic Density Change with 1 Year of Aerobic Exercise among Postmenopausal Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Alberta Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Prevention (ALPHA) Trial examined the influence of aerobic exercise on biological factors that are associated with breast cancer risk. Mammographic density, a secondary outcome, is reported here. METHODS: The ALPHA Trial was a parallel group randomized controlled trial conducted between May 2003 and July 2007. Postmenopausal, sedentary women ages 50 to 74 years (n = 320) were evenly randomized to aerobic exercise (45 minutes, 5 days per week) or control (usual life-style) for 1 year. Dense fibroglandular tissue and nondense fatty tissue were measured from mammograms at baseline and 1 year using computer-assisted thresholding software for area measurements and a new technique that relies on the calibration of mammography units with a tissue-equivalent phantom for volumetric measurements. RESULTS: Nondense volume decreased in the exercise group relative to the control group (difference between groups = -38.5 cm(3); 95% confidence interval, -61.6 to 15.4; P = 0.001). Changes in total body fat accounted for this decrease. Changes in dense area and dense volume, measures that have previously been associated with breast cancer risk, were not significantly different between the groups (P > or = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Achieving changes in mammographic measures may require more exercise or a study population with higher baseline levels of sex hormones or a wider range of mammographic density. The data from this study, however, suggest that the protective effect of exercise on breast cancer risk may operate through a mechanism other than mammographic density.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".