Predictors of Mammographic Density: Insights Gained from a Novel Regression Analysis of a Twin Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding which factors influence mammographically dense and nondense areas is important because percent mammographic density adjusted for age is a strong, continuously distributed risk factor for breast cancer, especially when adjusted for weight or body mass index. Using computer-assisted methods, we measured mammographically dense areas for 571 monozygotic and 380 dizygotic Australian and North American twin pairs ages 40 to 70 years. We used a novel regression modeling approach in which each twin's measure of dense and nondense area was regressed against one or both of the twin's and co-twin's covariates. The nature of changes to regression estimates with the inclusion of the twin and/or co-twin's covariates can be evaluated for consistency with causal and/or other models. By causal, we mean that if it were possible to vary a covariate experimentally then the expected value of the outcome measure would change. After adjusting for the individual's weight, the co-twin associations with weight were attenuated, consistent with a causal effect of weight on mammographic measures, which in absolute log cm(2)/kg was thrice stronger for nondense than dense area. After adjusting for weight, later age at menarche, and greater height were associated with greater dense and lesser nondense areas in a manner inconsistent with causality. The associations of dense and nondense areas with parity are consistent with a causal effect and/or within-person confounding. The associations between mammographic density measures and height are consistent with shared early life environmental factors that predispose to both height and percent mammographic density and possibly breast cancer risk.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".