A Case-Control Study to Add Volumetric or Clinical Mammographic Density into the Tyrer-Cuzick Breast Cancer Risk Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Accurate breast cancer risk assessment for women attending routine screening is needed to guide screening and preventive interventions. We evaluated the accuracy of risk predictions from both visual and volumetric mammographic density combined with the Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk model. Methods A case-control study (474 patient participants and 2243 healthy control participants) of women aged 40–79 years was performed using self-reported classical risk factors. Breast density was measured by using automated volumetric software and Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS) density categories. Odds ratios (95% CI) were estimated by using logistic regression, adjusted for age, demographic factors, and 10-year risk from the Tyrer-Cuzick model, for a change from the 25th to 75th percentile of the adjusted percent density distribution in control participants (IQ-OR). Results After adjustment for classical risk factors in the Tyrer-Cuzick model, age, and body mass index (BMI), BI-RADS density had an IQ-OR of 1.55 (95% CI = 1.33 to 1.80) compared with 1.40 (95% CI = 1.21 to 1.60) for volumetric percent density. Fibroglandular volume (IQ-OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.47) was a weaker predictor than was BI-RADS density (Pdiff = 0.014) or volumetric percent density (Pdiff = 0.065). In this setting, 4.8% of women were at high risk (8% + 10-year risk), using the Tyrer-Cuzick model without density, and 7.1% (BI-RADS) compared with 6.8% (volumetric) when combined with density. Conclusion The addition of volumetric and visual mammographic density measures to classical risk factors improves risk stratification. A combined risk could be used to guide precision medicine, through risk-adapted screening and prevention strategies.
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 | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".