MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953627578 · doi:10.1148/radiol.2019182441

The Association of Background Parenchymal Enhancement at Breast MRI with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019· review· en· W2953627578 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Thompson, Indika Mallawaarachchi, Durgesh K. Dwivedi, Anoop P. Ayyappan, Navkiran K. Shokar, Rajkumar Lakshmanaswamy, Alok Dwivedi

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerOdds ratioMeta-analysisConfidence intervalBreast MRIInternal medicineRelative riskCancerOncologyGynecologyMammography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The higher level of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) at breast MRI has the potential for early detection and prediction of the risk of breast cancer. However, conflicting findings have been reported about the association between the level of BPE at breast MRI and the presence of breast cancer. Purpose To evaluate the association between qualitative and quantitative BPE at dynamic contrast material–enhanced MRI and breast cancer among populations with average risk and high risk separately. Materials and Methods A retrospective meta-analysis of observational studies comparing either qualitative or quantitative assessments of BPE in women with and women without breast cancer was performed for studies published through July 2018. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models. The heterogeneity across the studies was measured by using the statistic I 2. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test this association according to different study characteristics. P values less than or equal to 5% were considered to indicate statistically significant results. Results Eighteen studies comprising 1910 women with breast cancer and 2541 control participants were included in the analysis. Among women with high risk, at least moderate BPE (OR, 1.6; 95% CI: 1.0, 2.6; P = .04) or at least mild BPE (OR, 2.1; 95% CI: 1.5, 3.0; P < .001) was associated with higher odds of breast cancer. Furthermore, women with breast cancer showed a higher average BPE percentage compared with control participants with high risk (standardized mean difference, 0.5; 95% CI: 0.2, 0.9; P = .001). No association was observed between at least mild BPE level (P = .15) or at least moderate BPE level (P = .38) and the presence of breast cancer among the population with average risk. Conclusion A higher level of background parenchymal enhancement measured at breast MRI is associated with the presence of breast cancer in women with high risk, but not in women with average risk. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mann and Pinker in this issue.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations69
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207