The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Variation in Mammographic Breast Density Assessments Among Radiologists in Clinical Practice: A Multicenter Observational Study
Open accessAbstract
Background: About half of the United States has legislation requiring radiology facilities to disclose mammographic breast density information to women, often with language recommending discussion of supplemental screening options for women with dense breasts. Objective: To examine variation in breast density assessment across radiologists in clinical practice. Design: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of prospectively collected observational data. Setting: 30 radiology facilities within the 3 breast cancer screening research centers of the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. Participants: Radiologists who interpreted at least 500 screening mammograms during 2011 to 2013 (n = 83). Data on 216 783 screening mammograms from 145 123 women aged 40 to 89 years were included. Measurements: Mammographic breast density, as clinically recorded using the 4 Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories (heterogeneously dense and extremely dense categories were considered "dense" for analyses), and patient age, race, and body mass index (BMI). Results: Overall, 36.9% of mammograms were rated as showing dense breasts. Across radiologists, this percentage ranged from 6.3% to 84.5% (median, 38.7% [interquartile range, 28.9% to 50.9%]), with multivariable adjustment for patient characteristics having little effect (interquartile range, 29.9% to 50.8%). Examination of patient subgroups revealed that variation in density assessment across radiologists was pervasive in all but the most extreme patient age and BMI combinations. Among women with consecutive mammograms interpreted by different radiologists, 17.2% (5909 of 34 271) had discordant assessments of dense versus nondense status. Limitation: Quantitative measures of mammographic breast density were not available for comparison. Conclusion: There is wide variation in density assessment across radiologists that should be carefully considered by providers and policymakers when considering supplemental screening strategies. The likelihood of a woman being told she has dense breasts varies substantially according to which radiologist interprets her mammogram. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gail, M. H., Brinton, L. A., Byar, D. P., Corle, D. K., Green, S. B., Schairer, C., & Mulvihill, J. J. (1989) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/81.24.1879 · Cited by 3,334
Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement
Siu, A. L., & on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2016) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m15-2886 · Cited by 2,094
Cited by
A Deep Learning Mammography-based Model for Improved Breast Cancer Risk Prediction
Yala, A., Lehman, C., Schuster, T., Portnoi, T., & Barzilay, R. (2019) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2019182716 · Cited by 758
Self-citationCurrent State of Breast Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment, and Theranostics
Bhushan, A., Gonsalves, A., & Menon, J. U. (2021) · Pharmaceutics · doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics13050723 · Cited by 298
Mammographic Breast Density Assessment Using Deep Learning: Clinical Implementation
Lehman, C. D., Yala, A., Schuster, T., Dontchos, B., Bahl, M., Swanson, K., & Barzilay, R. (2019) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2018180694 · Cited by 294
Self-citationBreast Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Using Mammographic Data: Systematic Review
Gardezi, S. J. S., Elazab, A., Lei, B., & Wang, T. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/14464 · Cited by 268
Harrison, S. M., Dolinsky, J. S., Knight Johnson, A. E., Pesaran, T., Azzariti, D. R., Bale, S., Chao, E. C., Das, S., Vincent, L., & Rehm, H. L. (2017) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1038/gim.2017.14 · Cited by 234
Metadata
- Authors
- Sprague, B. L., Conant, E. F., Onega, T., Garcia, M. P., Beaber, E. F., Herschorn, S. D., Lehman, C. D., Tosteson, A. N. A., Lacson, R., Schnall, M. D., Kontos, D., Haas, J. S., Weaver, D. L., Barlow, W. E., & on behalf of the PROSPR Consortium*
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 2016-10-04
- Volume
- 165
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 457-464
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2494536949
- Cited by
- 202
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 15.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Variation in Mammographic Breast Density Assessments Among Radiologists in Clinical Practice: A Multicenter Observational Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/m15-2934
- The paper
- Sprague, B. L., Conant, E. F., Onega, T., Garcia, M. P., Beaber, E. F., Herschorn, S. D., Lehman, C. D., Tosteson, A. N. A., Lacson, R., Schnall, M. D., Kontos, D., Haas, J. S., Weaver, D. L., Barlow, W. E., & on behalf of the PROSPR Consortium*. (2016). Variation in Mammographic Breast Density Assessments Among Radiologists in Clinical Practice: A Multicenter Observational Study. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/m15-2934
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.