ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2008
How does age affect baseline screening mammography performance measures? A decision model.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- What is the point: will screening mammography save my life?BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2009Trial
- Optimising screening intervals and BI-RADS management pathways in ultrasound-based breast cancer screening: real-world evidence from Shenzhen (2018-2023).Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Breast Cancer Screening Among Females With and Without Schizophrenia.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Multi-vendor robustness analysis of a commercial artificial intelligence system for breast cancer detection.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2023Article
- Influence of mammographic density and compressed breast thickness on true mammographic sensitivity: a cohort study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Studying the association between longitudinal mammographic density measurements and breast cancer risk: a joint modelling approach.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness of screening mammography in a low income country: a Markov simulation analysis.BMC medical imaging · 2021Article
- Screening Mammography Among Older Women: A Review of United States Guidelines and Potential Harms.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2019Article
- Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology AloneAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018Review
- Four Principles to Consider Before Advising Women on Screening Mammography.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2015Review
- Article
- Mammographic assessment of a geographically defined population at a mastology referral hospital in São Paulo Brazil.PloS one · 2013Article
- Modeling screening, prevention, and delaying of Alzheimer's disease: an early-stage decision analytic model.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn order to promote consumer-oriented informed medical decision-making regarding screening mammography, we created a decision model to predict the age dependence of the cancer detection rate, the recall rate and the secondary performance measures (positive predictive values, total intervention rate, and positive biopsy fraction) for a baseline mammogram.
methodsWe constructed a decision tree to model the possible outcomes of a baseline screening mammogram in women ages 35 to 65. We compared the single baseline screening mammogram decision with the no screening alternative. We used the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results national cancer database as the primary input to estimate cancer prevalence. For other probabilities, the model used population-based estimates for screening mammography accuracy and diagnostic mammography outcomes specific to baseline exams. We varied radiologist performance for screening accuracy.
resultsThe cancer detection rate increases from 1.9/1000 at age 40 to 7.2/1000 at age 50 to 15.1/1000 at age 60. The recall rate remains relatively stable at 142-157/1000, which varies from 73-236/1000 at age 50 depending on radiologist performance. The positive predictive value of a screening mammogram increases from 1.3% at age 40 to 9.8% at age 60, while the positive predictive value of a diagnostic mammogram varies from 2.9% at age 40 to 19.2% at age 60. The model predicts the total intervention rate = 0.013*AGE2 - 0.67*AGE + 40, or 34/1000 at age 40 to 47/1000 at age 60. Therefore, the positive biopsy (intervention) fraction varies from 6% at age 40 to 32% at age 60.
conclusionBreast cancer prevalence, the cancer detection rate, and all secondary screening mammography performance measures increase substantially with age.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.