MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P6-09-04: Volumetric breast density improves breast cancer risk prediction

2015· article· en· W2226431206 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer A. Harvey, George J. Stukenborg, Wendy Cohn, Kathy Repich, Olivier Alonzo, Wendy M. Novicoff, Martin D. Yaffe, William A. Knaus

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineLogistic regressionPopulationMatching (statistics)Conditional logistic regressionCase-control studyStatisticsCancerInternal medicineMathematicsPathologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: There is increasing interest in implementing personalized breast cancer screening strategies rather than relying on population based guidelines. Most risk models do not include breast density and two models that do rely on subjective BI-RADS categories; all have limited discriminatory ability (C-statistics ranging from 0.60-0.74). Our aim was to develop a model that includes an automated objective and numeric volumetric measurement of breast density with other known risk factors to improve risk prediction. Methods: A case-control study design was used to evaluate the association between risk factors and breast cancer diagnosis. All women diagnosed with breast cancer during 2003-13 with a digital contralateral mammogram at the University of Virginia at the time of diagnosis were eligible as cases. All women without a breast cancer diagnosis but with a digital mammogram at UVA during 2003-2008 were eligible as controls. Risk factor information was collected using a self-reported electronic questionnaire. Mean automated volumetric breast density (Volpara, NZ) was calculated for each patient as a percentage. Controls were matched to cases in a 2:1 ratio based on age group, race, and education, using the GREEDY algorithm. Case-control selections were made using the weighted sum of the absolute differences between the case and control matching factors. Conditional logistic regression using the partial likelihood function from Cox proportional hazard’s regression was used to fit risk prediction equations to the matched case-control study dataset, with stratification for each case matched set. A full model was estimated including all available covariates for use as a model performance reference standard. A reduced model was then estimated including covariates in the full model that had a Wald Chi-Square/degrees of freedom ratio > 1.0. The performance of the full and reduced models was measured using the C index and the maximum R-Square statistic. Results: The study enrolled 3,445 women; 839 cases and 2,606 controls. Multivariable analysis was conducted using 825 cases and 1,628 controls with 1 or more breast studies reported for the surveyed population. The matching process yielded balanced matching factor values between cases and controls, with no significant differences in age group (p = 0.95), race (p = 0.13), or education (p = 0.86). The full prediction model (with 97 df) yielded a C index of 0.88, and an R-Square of 0.53. The reduced model (with 15 df) had a C index of 0.83 and an R-Square of 0.54. Variables in the reduced model included: mean breast density; biopsy showing ADH, ALH/LCIS; BMI; use of HRT, contraceptives, NSAIDS; smoking; exercise; parity; diabetes; family history of breast cancer, HBOC, Li-Fraumeni, or Cowden Syndromes and/or BRCA mutation. Mean volumetric breast density was a leading independent predictor of case status in both the full (p<0.0001) and reduced models (p=0.0212). Conclusion: Volumetric breast density with other known risk factors may provide more accurate individual risk assessment, enabling clinicians to develop patient centered risk based screening protocols that better inform decision making while including patient preferences. The next steps require independent validation of the risk model in other populations. Citation Format: Jennifer A Harvey, George J Stukenborg, Wendy F Cohn, Kathy L Repich, Olivier Alonzo, Wendy M Novicoff, Martin D Yaffe, William A Knaus. Volumetric breast density improves breast cancer risk prediction [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-09-04.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207