| Title |
Predicting breast cancer risk using mammographic density measurements from both mammogram sides and views
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, June 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10549-010-0976-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jennifer Stone, Jane Ding, Ruth M. L. Warren, Stephen W. Duffy |
| Abstract |
Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer. Which and how many x-rays are used for research, and how mammographic density is measured varies across studies. In this article, we compared three different measurements (absolute dense area, percent dense area and percent dense volume) from each of four mammograms [left, right, medio-lateral oblique (MLO) and cranio-caudal (CC) views] using three different methods of measurement [computer-assisted thresholding, visual assessment and standard mammogram form (SMF)] to investigate whether additional measurements and/or different methods of measurement provide more information in the prediction of breast cancer risk. Mammographic density was measured in all four mammograms from 318 cases and 899 age-matched controls combined from the Cambridge and Norwich Breast Screening Programmes. Measurements were averaged across various combinations of mammogram type and/or view. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios associated with increasing quintiles of each mammographic measure. Overall, there appeared to be no difference in the fit of the models using two or four mammograms compared to the models using just the contralateral MLO or CC mammogram (all P > 0.07) for all methods of measurement. Common practice of measuring just the contralateral MLO or CC mammogram for analysis in case-control studies investigating the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk appears to be sufficient. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 24% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2010.
All research outputs
#20,150,151
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#4,072
of 4,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,089
of 95,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#39
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,612 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 95,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.