MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161687379 · doi:10.1093/jncics/pkab015

Relation of Quantitative Histologic and Radiologic Breast Tissue Composition Metrics With Invasive Breast Cancer Risk

2021· article· en· W3161687379 on OpenAlexaff
Mustapha Abubakar, Shaoqi Fan, Erin J. Aiello Bowles, Lea Widemann, Máire A. Duggan, Ruth M. Pfeiffer, Roni T. Falk, Scott M. Lawrence, Kathryn Richert-Boe, Andrew G. Glass, Teresa M. Kimes, Jonine D. Figueroa, Thomas E. Rohan, Gretchen L. Gierach

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Cancer Spectrum · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Cancer InstituteBreast Cancer Research FoundationDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer InstituteU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerBreast tissueRadiologyPathologyOncologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Benign breast disease (BBD) is a strong breast cancer risk factor, but identifying patients that might develop invasive breast cancer remains a challenge. Methods By applying machine-learning to digitized hematoxylin and eosin–stained biopsies and computer-assisted thresholding to mammograms obtained circa BBD diagnosis, we generated quantitative tissue composition metrics and determined their association with future invasive breast cancer diagnosis. Archival breast biopsies and mammograms were obtained for women (18-86 years of age) in a case-control study, nested within a cohort of 15 395 BBD patients from Kaiser Permanente Northwest (1970-2012), followed through mid-2015. Patients who developed incident invasive breast cancer (ie, cases; n = 514) and those who did not (ie, controls; n = 514) were matched on BBD diagnosis age and plan membership duration. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Increasing epithelial area on the BBD biopsy was associated with increasing breast cancer risk (odds ratio [OR]Q4 vs Q1 = 1.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13 to 3.04; Ptrend = .02). Conversely, increasing stroma was associated with decreased risk in nonproliferative, but not proliferative, BBD (Pheterogeneity = .002). Increasing epithelium-to-stroma proportion (ORQ4 vs Q1 = 2.06, 95% CI =1.28 to 3.33; Ptrend = .002) and percent mammographic density (MBD) (ORQ4 vs Q1 = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.20 to 4.03; Ptrend = .01) were independently and strongly predictive of increased breast cancer risk. In combination, women with high epithelium-to-stroma proportion and high MBD had substantially higher risk than those with low epithelium-to-stroma proportion and low MBD (OR = 2.27, 95% CI = 1.27 to 4.06; Ptrend = .005), particularly among women with nonproliferative (Ptrend = .01) vs proliferative (Ptrend = .33) BBD. Conclusion Among BBD patients, increasing epithelium-to-stroma proportion on BBD biopsies and percent MBD at BBD diagnosis were independently and jointly associated with increasing breast cancer risk. These findings were particularly striking for women with nonproliferative disease (comprising approximately 70% of all BBD patients), for whom relevant predictive biomarkers are lacking.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Cancer SpectrumSame topicDigital Radiography and Breast ImagingFrench-language works237,207