Vitamin D, Calcium, and Mammographic Breast Densities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vitamin D and calcium are being evaluated as potential breast cancer prevention agents. This study reports on the relation of dietary vitamin D and calcium to mammographic breast densities, one of the strongest breast cancer risk factors. Participants were women ages 40 to 60 years who had had a screening mammogram in Rhode Island and eastern Massachusetts (1989-1990). Diet was assessed by semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire, and the percentage of the breast showing densities was estimated visually by a single observer without information on subjects. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare dietary intakes of vitamin D and calcium between women classified as having few densities (< or =30% of the breast with density, n = 287) and extensive densities (> or =70% of the breast with density, n = 256). For categories of increasing vitamin D intake (<50, 50-99, 100-199, and > or =200 IU/d), adjusted odds ratios (OR) for extensive densities were 1.00 (reference), 0.51, 0.37, and 0.24, respectively (P for trend = 0.0005). For increasing calcium intake (<500, 500-749, 750-999, and > or =1,000 mg/d), adjusted ORs were 1.00 (reference), 0.63, 0.25, and 0.24, respectively (P for trend = 0.0006). Combination of higher intakes of vitamin D and calcium (> or =100 IU/d and > or =750 mg/d, respectively) were associated with a reduction of breast densities (OR, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.54) compared with those consuming <100 IU/d and <750 mg/d. Increases in vitamin D and calcium intakes were associated with decreases in breast densities, suggesting that dietary vitamin D and calcium could reduce breast cancer risk possibly through influences on breast tissue morphology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".