| Title |
Assessing within-woman changes in mammographic density: a comparison of fully versus semi-automated area-based approaches
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Causes & Control, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10552-016-0722-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marta Cecilia Busana, Bianca L. De Stavola, Ulla Sovio, Jingmei Li, Sue Moss, Keith Humphreys, Isabel dos-Santos-Silva |
| Abstract |
Mammographic density (MD) varies throughout a woman's life. We compared the performance of a fully automated (ImageJ-based) method to the observer-dependent Cumulus approach in the assessment of within-woman changes in MD over time. MD was assessed in annual pre-diagnostic films (from age 40 to early 50s) from 313 breast cancer cases and 452 matched controls using Cumulus (left medio-lateral oblique (MLO) readings) and the ImageJ-based method (mean left-right MLO readings). Linear mixed models were used to compare within-woman changes in MD among controls. Associations between individual-specific MD trajectories and breast cancer were examined using conditional logistic regression. The age-related trajectories predicted by Cumulus and the ImageJ-based method were similar for all MD measures, except that the ImageJ-based method yielded slightly higher (by 2.54 %, 95 % CI 2.07 %, 3.00 %) estimates for percent MD. For both methods, the yearly rate of change in percent MD was twice faster after menopause than before, and higher BMI was associated with lower mean percent MD, but not associated with rate of change. Both methods yielded similar associations of individual-specific MD trajectories with breast cancer risk. The ImageJ-based method is a valid fully automated alternative to Cumulus for measuring within-woman changes in MD in digitized films. The Age Trial is registered as an International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN24647151. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 15% |
| Professor | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 15 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 15% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 16 | 39% |
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 10 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,698,308
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Causes & Control
#1,770
of 2,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,463
of 403,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#19
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 403,270 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.