Adiposity, breast density, and breast cancer risk: epidemiological and biological considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Excess total body fat and abdominal adipose tissue are recognized risk factors for metabolic diseases but also for some types of cancers, including breast cancer. Several biological mechanisms in connection with local and systemic effects of adiposity are believed to be implicated in breast cancer development, and may involve breast fat. Breast adipose tissue can be studied through mammography by looking at breast density features such as the nondense area mainly composed of fat, or the percent breast density, which is the proportion of fibroglandular tissue in relation to fat. The relation between adiposity, breast density features, and breast cancer is complex. Studies suggest a paradoxical association as adiposity and absolute nondense area correlate positively with each other, but in contrast to adiposity, absolute nondense area seems to be associated negatively with breast cancer risk. As breast density is one of the strongest risk factors for breast cancer, it is therefore critical to understand how these factors interrelate. In this review, we discuss these relations by first presenting how adiposity measurements and breast density features are linked to breast cancer risk. Then, we used a systematic approach to capture the literature to review the relation between adiposity and breast density features. Finally, the role of adipose tissue in carcinogenesis is discussed briefly from a biological perspective.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".