Alternative methods to measure breast density in younger women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast density is a strong and potentially modifiable breast cancer risk factor. Almost everything we know about breast density has been derived from mammography, and therefore, very little is known about breast density in younger women aged <40. This study examines the acceptability and performance of two alternative breast density measures, Optical Breast Spectroscopy (OBS) and Dual X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA), in women aged 18-40. METHODS: Breast tissue composition (percent water, collagen, and lipid content) was measured in 539 women aged 18-40 using OBS. For a subset of 169 women, breast density was also measured via DXA (percent fibroglandular dense volume (%FGV), absolute dense volume (FGV), and non-dense volume (NFGV)). Acceptability of the measurement procedures was assessed using an adapted validated questionnaire. Performance was assessed by examining the correlation and agreement between the measures and their associations with known determinants of mammographic breast density. RESULTS: Over 93% of participants deemed OBS and DXA to be acceptable. The correlation between OBS-%water + collagen and %FGV was 0.48. Age and BMI were inversely associated with OBS-%water + collagen and %FGV and positively associated with OBS-%lipid and NFGV. CONCLUSIONS: OBS and DXA provide acceptable and viable alternative methods to measure breast density in younger women aged 18-40 years.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".