MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determination of breast density by bioimpedance.

2012· article· en· W2590854912 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karina Bukhanov, Joel S. Ironstone, Cindy Basso, T. N. Bilodeau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerBreast densityCorrelationPearson product-moment correlation coefficientBreast imagingMammographyNuclear medicineInternal medicineCancerStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

56 Background: Mammographic breast density is a significant risk factor for breast cancer. Women with extremely dense breasts are at 4-to-6 times the risk of developing breast cancer than women with primarily fatty breast tissue. Electrical Breast Densitometry (EBD) is a new technique that assesses breast density. EBD is non-ionizing, fast, has low cost per test ($20-$30) and may help in breast cancer risk assessment in the primary care setting. Methods: This study evaluated the feasibility of the EBD in an IRB-approved pilot study of 20 patients. The study used a custom-made self-adhesive electrode (SenoSENSE Medical Systems, Toronto, Canada) interfaced to an off-the-shelf impedance meter (Bodystat 1500, Bodystat, Isle of Man, UK) with a customized cable. On the same day as the subject’s scheduled mammogram, impedance measurements were acquired for each breast. Mammogram densities were scored by a trained radiologist using standard BiRADS breast density categories 1 to 4. Results: A high correlation coefficient was observed (Pearson correlation coefficient >0.80) between breast density determined by the EBD and the BiRADS breast density score. In addition a statistically significant difference was observed between dense categories (BiRADS 3,4) and fatty categories (BiRADS 1,2) (p<0.01), as well as between extremely dense breasts (BiRADS 4) and all other categories (p<0.01). Very high correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient >0.95) was observed between EBD measurements on the left and right breasts. Previous studies have reported a left/right correlation of 0.89 for blinded mammography readers. Conclusions: These results suggests that the EBD measure may be less variable than mammographic estimates of density. The results of the study suggest that Electrical Breast Densitometry is a promising technique for the assessment of breast density and the ability to aid in evaluation of breast cancer risk. It can be reasonably deployed at primary care facilities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207