MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953508913 · doi:10.1186/s12885-019-5855-2

Predictors of mammographic density among women with a strong family history of breast cancer

2019· article· en· W2953508913 on OpenAlexaff
Olivia Moran, Andrea Eisen, Rochelle Demsky, Kristina M. Blackmore, Julia A. Knight, Seema Panchal, Ophira Ginsburg, Kevin Zbuk, Martin J. Yaffe, Kelly Metcalfe, Steven A. Narod, Joanne Kotsopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cancer · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioMount Sinai HospitalLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstitutePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkSinai Health SystemSunnybrook Health Science CentreMcMaster UniversityCancer Care OntarioWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITYBreast cancerFamily historyObstetricsGynecologySurgical oncologyDemographyRisk factors for breast cancerMammographyCancerRisk factorOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Mammographic density is one of the strongest risk factors for breast cancer. In the general population, mammographic density can be modified by various exposures; whether this is true for women a strong family history is not known. Thus, we evaluated the association between reproductive, hormonal, and lifestyle risk factors and mammographic density among women with a strong family history of breast cancer but no BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Methods We included 97 premenopausal and 59 postmenopausal women (age range: 27-68 years). Risk factor data was extracted from the research questionnaire closest in time to the mammogram performed nearest to enrollment. The Cumulus software was used to measure percent density, dense area, and non-dense area for each mammogram. Multivariate generalized linear models were used to evaluate the relationships between breast cancer risk factors and measures of mammographic density, adjusting for relevant covariates. Results Among premenopausal women, those who had two live births had a mean percent density of 28.8% vs. 41.6% among women who had one live birth ( P =0.04). Women with a high body weight had a lower mean percent density compared to women with a low body weight among premenopausal (17.6% vs. 33.2%; P =0.0006) and postmenopausal women (8.7% vs. 14.7%; P =0.04). Among premenopausal women, those who smoked for 14 years or longer had a lower mean dense area compared to women who smoked for a shorter duration (25.3cm 2 vs. 53.1cm 2 ; P= 0.002). Among postmenopausal women, former smokers had a higher mean percent density (19.5% vs. 10.8%; P =0.003) and dense area (26.9% vs. 16.4%; P =0.01) compared to never smokers. After applying the Bonferroni correction, the association between body weight and percent density among premenopausal women remained statistically significant. Conclusions In this cohort of women with a strong family history of breast cancer, body weight was associated with mammographic density. These findings suggest that mammographic density may explain the underlying relationship between some of these risk factors and breast cancer risk, and lend support for the inclusion of mammographic density into risk prediction models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC CancerSame topicDigital Radiography and Breast ImagingFrench-language works237,207