↓ Skip to main content

Mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness threshold better predicts breast cancer risk for full-field digital mammograms

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness threshold better predicts breast cancer risk for full-field digital mammograms
Published in
Breast Cancer Research, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13058-015-0654-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tuong Linh Nguyen, Ye Kyaw Aung, Christopher Francis Evans, Choi Yoon-Ho, Mark Anthony Jenkins, Joohon Sung, John Llewelyn Hopper, Yun-Mi Song

Abstract

When measured using the computer-assisted method CUMULUS, mammographic density adjusted for age and body mass index predicts breast cancer risk. We asked if new mammographic density measures defined by higher brightness thresholds gave better risk predictions. The Korean Breast Cancer Study included 213 women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and 630 controls matched for age at full-field digital mammogram and menopausal status. Mammographic density was measured using CUMULUS at the conventional threshold (Cumulus), and in effect at two increasingly higher thresholds, which we call Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus, respectively. All measures were Box-Cox transformed and adjusted for age, body mass index, menopausal status and machine. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate the change in Odds PER standard deviation of transformed and Adjusted density measures (OPERA). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was estimated. Corresponding Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus density measures were correlated with Cumulus measures (r approximately 0.8 and 0.6, respectively). Altocumulus and Cirrocumulus measures were on average 25 % and 80 % less, respectively, than the Cumulus measure. For dense area, the OPERA was 1.18 (95 % confidence interval: 1.01-1.39, P = 0.03) for Cumulus; 1.36 (1.15-1.62, P < 0.001) for Altocumulus; and 1.23 (1.04-1.45, P = 0.01) for Cirrocumulus. After fitting the Altocumulus measure, the Cumulus measure was no longer associated with risk. After fitting the Cumulus measure, the Altocumulus measure was still associated with risk (P = 0.001). The AUCs for dense area was 0.59 for the Altocumulus measure, greater than 0.55 and 0.57 for the Cumulus and Cirrocumulus measures, respectively (P = 0.001). Similar results were found for percentage dense area measures. Altocumulus measures perform better than Cumulus measures in predicting breast cancer risk, and Cumulus measures are confounded by Altocumulus measures. The mammographically bright regions might be more aetiologically important for breast cancer, with implications for biological, molecular, genetic and epidemiological research and clinical translation.

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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
Mexico 1 3%
Unknown 35 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 22%
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Mathematics 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 7 19%
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
#19,942,887
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research
#1,654
of 2,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,488
of 392,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research
#16
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 2,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 392,456 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 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.