Risk factors for benign proliferative breast disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As part of a nested case-control study of benign proliferative breast disease (BPBD) conducted within the cohort of women participating in the Alberta breast screening programme, an analysis of all women who had a benign breast biopsy between 1990 and 1995 was undertaken to identify the epidemiological risk factors for BPBD. METHODS: The breast biopsies of all eligible women were re-reviewed by a panel of four pathologists using Page's classification for benign breast disease. Cases were 165 women whose biopsies, upon review, showed benign breast tissue changes ranging from sclerosing adenosis to atypical ductal hyperplasia. Controls were 217 women whose biopsies showed no evidence of any proliferative or neoplastic changes. In-person interviews were conducted with all study subjects. RESULTS: Women with >/=25% fibroglandular breast tissue density, as compared to women with <25% density, experienced nearly a doubling in risk of BPBD (OR = 1.91, 95% CI : 1.24-2.94). All other possible risk factors examined were not associated with BPBD. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that fibroglandular tissue density may be a risk factor, or marker, for increased risk of BPBD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".