Association of contralateral breast cancer risk with mammographic density defined at higher‐than‐conventional intensity thresholds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammographic dense area (MDA) is an established predictor of future breast cancer risk. Recent studies have found that risk prediction might be improved by redefining MDA in effect at higher-than-conventional intensity thresholds. We assessed whether such higher-intensity MDA measures gave stronger prediction of subsequent contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk using the Women's Environment, Cancer, and Radiation Epidemiology (WECARE) Study, a population-based CBC case-control study of ≥1 year survivors of unilateral breast cancer diagnosed between 1990 and 2008. Three measures of MDA for the unaffected contralateral breast were made at the conventional intensity threshold ("Cumulus") and at two sequentially higher-intensity thresholds ("Altocumulus" and "Cirrocumulus") using the CUMULUS software and mammograms taken up to 3 years prior to the first breast cancer diagnosis. The measures were fitted separately and together in multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models of CBC (252 CBC cases and 271 unilateral breast cancer controls). The strongest association with CBC was MDA defined using the highest intensity threshold, Cirrocumulus (odds ratio per adjusted SD [OPERA] 1.40, 95% CI 1.13-1.73); and the weakest association was MDA defined at the conventional threshold, Cumulus (1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.66). In a model fitting the three measures together, the association of CBC with Cirrocumulus was unchanged (1.40, 95% CI 0.97-2.05), and the lower brightness measures did not contribute to the CBC model fit. These results suggest that MDA defined at a high-intensity threshold is a better predictor of CBC risk and has the potential to improve CBC risk stratification beyond conventional MDA measures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".