Cited by 15Digital Radiography and Breast ImagingAI in cancer detectionBone health and osteoporosis research

Mammographic density using two computer-based methods in an isoflavone trial

Kataoka, Masako, Atkinson, Charlotte, Warren, Ruth, Sala, Evis, Day, Nicholas E., Highnam, Ralph, Warsi, Iqbal, Bingham, Sheila A.·2008·Maturitas

Abstract

Objectives Mammographic density is a useful biomarker of breast cancer risk. Computer-based methods can provide continuous data suitable for analysis. This study aimed to compare a semi-automated computer-assisted method (Cumulus) and a fully automated volumetric computer method (standard mammogram form (SMF)) for assessing mammographic density using data from a previously conducted randomised placebo-controlled trial of an isoflavone supplement. Methods Mammograms were obtained from participants in the intervention study. A total of 177 women completed the study. Baseline and follow-up mammograms were digitised and density was estimated using Cumulus (read by two readers) and SMF. Left-right correlation, changes in density over time, and difference between intervention and control groups were evaluated. Changes of density over time, and changes between intervention group and control group were examined using paired t-test and Student's t-test, respectively. Results Inter-reader correlation coefficient by Cumulus was 0.90 for dense area, and 0.86 for percentage density. Left-right correlation of percent density was lower in SMF than in Cumulus. Among all women, percentage density by Cumulus decreased significantly over time, but no change was seen for SMF percentage density. The intervention group showed marginally significant greater reduction of percent density by Cumulus compared to controls (p=0.04), but the difference became weak after adjustment for baseline percent den…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.maturitas.2008.03.005

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • None of the RCTs assessing endometrial thickness, mammographic density or changes, nipple aspirate volume, PAP results and uterine fibroid growth, or vaginal cytology found any evidence of negative impact from soy compared to control.

    “None of the studies assessing endometrial thickness [132,136,155], mammographic density or mammographic changes [66,132,136,137,144,146], nipple aspirate volume [134], PAP results and uterine fibroid growth [132], or vaginal cytology [155] found any evidence of negative impact from soy compared to the control group.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kataoka, M., Atkinson, C., Warren, R., Sala, E., Day, N. E., Highnam, R., Warsi, I., & Bingham, S. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University Of Bristol Dental Hospital (GB)
  • Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
  • MRC Mitochondrial Biology Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Kataoka, Masako
Venue
Maturitas
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-04
Volume
59
Issue
4
Pages
350-357
ISSN
0378-5122 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2116538637
Cited by
15
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Maturitas (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Food Standards Agency
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
Keywords
breast density, breast cancer risk biomarkers, interobserver agreement
MeSH terms
Aged, Breast, Female, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Isoflavones, Mammography, Middle Aged, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review