↓ Skip to main content

Women’s features and inter-/intra-rater agreement on mammographic density assessment in full-field digital mammograms (DDM-SPAIN)

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Women’s features and inter-/intra-rater agreement on mammographic density assessment in full-field digital mammograms (DDM-SPAIN)
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, November 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10549-011-1833-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beatriz Pérez-Gómez, Franciso Ruiz, Inmaculada Martínez, María Casals, Josefa Miranda, Carmen Sánchez-Contador, Carmen Vidal, Rafael Llobet, Marina Pollán, Dolores Salas

Abstract

Measurement of mammographic density (MD), one of the leading risk factors for breast cancer, still relies on subjective assessment. However, the consistency of MD measurement in full-digital mammograms has yet to be evaluated. We studied inter- and intra-rater agreement with respect to estimation of breast density in full-digital mammograms, and tested whether any of the women's characteristics might have some influence on them. After an initial training period, three experienced radiologists estimated MD using Boyd scale in a left breast cranio-caudal mammogram of 1,431 women, recruited at three Spanish screening centres. A subgroup of 50 randomly selected images was read twice to estimate short-term intra-rater agreement. In addition, a reading of 1,428 of the images, performed 2 years before by one rater, was used to estimate long-term intra-rater agreement. Pair-wise weighted kappas with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals were calculated. Dichotomous variables were defined to identify mammograms in which any rater disagreed with other raters or with his/her own assessment, respectively. The association between disagreement and women's characteristics was tested using multivariate mixed logistic models, including centre as a random-effects term, and taking into account repeated measures when required. All quadratic-weighted kappa values for inter- and intra-rater agreement were excellent (higher than 0.80). None of the studied women's features, i.e. body mass index, brassiere size, menopause, nulliparity, lactation or current hormonal therapy, was associated with higher risk of inter- or intra-rater disagreement. However, raters differed significantly more in images that were classified in the higher-density MD categories, and disagreement in intra-rater assessment was also lower in low-density mammograms. The reliability of MD assessment in full-field digital mammograms is comparable to that for original or digitised images. The reassuring lack of association between subjects' MD-related characteristics and agreement suggests that bias from this source is unlikely.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 15%
Professor 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Mathematics 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 12 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 November 2015.
All research outputs
#17,656,152
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#3,541
of 4,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,311
of 141,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#40
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,613 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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 141,732 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.