Risk Analysis of Breast Cancer by Using Bilateral Mammographic Density Differences: A Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The identification of risk factors helps radiologists assess the risk of breast cancer. Quantitative factors such as age and mammographic density are established risk factors for breast cancer. Asymmetric breast findings are frequently encountered during diagnostic mammography. The asymmetric area may indicate a developing mass in the early stage, causing a difference in mammographic density between the left and right sides. Therefore, this paper aims to propose a quantitative parameter named bilateral mammographic density difference (BMDD) for the quantification of breast asymmetry and to verify BMDD as a risk factor for breast cancer. To quantitatively evaluate breast asymmetry, we developed a semi-automatic method to estimate mammographic densities and calculate BMDD as the absolute difference between the left and right mammographic densities. And then, a retrospective case-control study, covering the period from July 2006 to October 2014, was conducted to analyse breast cancer risk in association with BMDD. The study included 364 women diagnosed with breast cancer and 364 matched control patients. As a result, a significant difference in BMDD was found between cases and controls (P < 0.001) and the case-control study demonstrated that women with BMDD > 10% had a 2.4-fold higher risk of breast cancer (odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-4.5) than women with BMDD ≤ 10%. In addition, we also demonstrated the positive association between BMDD and breast cancer risk among the subgroups with different ages and the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) mammographic density categories. This study demonstrated that BMDD could be a potential risk factor for breast cancer.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".