The Added Value of Supplemental Breast Ultrasound Screening for Women With Dense Breasts: A Single Center Canadian Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the contribution to cancer detection of supplemental breast ultrasound screening in women with dense breasts based on a single center experience by comparing our results with similar programs elsewhere. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of handheld sonographer-performed screening ultrasound exams at our academic breast imaging center, from January 1st to December 31st, 2019. Breast density, breast cancer risk factors, BI-RADS assessment, and lesion pathology were reviewed and tallied, followed by derivation of the biopsy rate, breast cancer detection rate, PPV3 and average tumor size. These values were compared to published results of breast screening programs elsewhere. RESULTS: 695 screening breast ultrasounds for women with dense breasts and negative mammograms were performed in 2019. The biopsy rate was 1.3%, breast cancer detection rate was 7 in 1000, PPV3 was 42%, and the average tumor size was 9.0 ± 1.4 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The first-year data of the breast screening ultrasound program at our practice are promising, demonstrating comparable cancer detection rate, higher PPV3, and similar biopsy rate in those with dense breasts compared with similar programs elsewhere. Longitudinal analysis and larger sample size are required for validation. Comparison of incidence and prevalence screening data is also warranted to elucidate the true value of this program.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".