The distribution of breast density in women aged 18 years and older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Age and body mass index (BMI) are critical considerations when assessing individual breast cancer risk, particularly for women with dense breasts. However, age- and BMI-standardized estimates of breast density are not available for screen-aged women, and little is known about the distribution of breast density in women aged < 40. This cross-sectional study uses three different modalities: optical breast spectroscopy (OBS), dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and mammography, to describe the distributions of breast density across categories of age and BMI. METHODS: Breast density measures were estimated for 1,961 Australian women aged 18-97 years using OBS (%water and %water + %collagen). Of these, 935 women had DXA measures (percent and absolute fibroglandular dense volume, %FGV and FGV, respectively) and 354 had conventional mammographic measures (percent and absolute dense area). The distributions for each breast density measure were described across categories of age and BMI. RESULTS: The mean age was 38 years (standard deviation = 15). Median breast density measures decreased with age and BMI for all three modalities, except for DXA-FGV, which increased with BMI and decreased after age 30. The variation in breast density measures was largest for younger women and decreased with increasing age and BMI. CONCLUSION: This unique study describes the distribution of breast density measures for women aged 18-97 using alternative and conventional modalities of measurement. While this study is the largest of its kind, larger sample sizes are needed to provide clinically useful age-standardized measures to identify women with high breast density for their age or BMI.
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 | 0.000 | 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".