Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 202

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 access
Sprague, Brian L., Conant, Emily F., Onega, Tracy, Garcia, Michael P., Beaber, Elisabeth F., Herschorn, Sally D., Lehman, Constance D., Tosteson, Anna N.A., Lacson, Ronilda, Schnall, Mitchell D., Kontos, Despina, Haas, Jennifer S., Weaver, Donald L., Barlow, William E., on behalf of the PROSPR Consortium*·2016·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/m15-2934

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 202

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
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.