ArticleMedical physics2012
Consistency of breast density measured from the same women in four different MR scanners.
Article in Medical physics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automatic Breast and Fibroglandular Tissue Segmentation in Breast MRI Using Deep Learning by a Fully-Convolutional Residual Neural Network U-Net.Academic radiology · 2019Article
- Quantitative Measurements of Breast Density Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
- Imaging Breast Density: Established and Emerging Modalities.Translational oncology · 2015Review
- Breast density evaluation using spectral mammography, radiologist reader assessment, and segmentation techniques: a retrospective study based on left and right breast comparison.Academic radiology · 2015Article
- Quantification of Regional Breast Density in Four Quadrants Using 3D MRI-A Pilot Study.Translational oncology · 2015Article
- Impact of positional difference on the measurement of breast density using MRI.Medical physics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the breast volume (BV), fibroglandular tissue volume (FV), and percent density (PD) measured from breast MRI of the same women using four different MR scanners.
methodsThe study was performed in 34 healthy Asian volunteers using two 1.5T (GE and Siemens) and two 3T (GE and Philips) MR scanners. The BV, FV, and PD were measured on nonfat-suppressed T1-weighted images using a comprehensive computer algorithm-based segmentation method. The scanner-to-scanner measurement difference, and the coefficient of variation (CV) among the four scanners were calculated. The measurement variation between two density morphological patterns presenting as the central type and the intermingled type was separately analyzed and compared.
resultsAll four scanners provided satisfactory image quality allowing for successful completion of the segmentation processes. The measured parameters between each pair of MR scanners were highly correlated, with R(2) ≥ 0.95 for BV, R(2) ≥ 0.99 for FV, and R(2) ≥ 0.97 for PD in all comparisons. The mean percent differences between each pair of scanners were 5.9%-7.8% for BV, 5.3%-6.5% for FV, 4.3%-7.3% for PD; with the overall CV of 5.8% for BV, 4.8% for FV, and 4.9% for PD. The variation of FV was smaller in the central type than in the intermingled type (p = 0.04).
conclusionsThe results showed that the variation of FV and PD measured from four different MR scanners is around 5%, suggesting the parameters measured using different scanners can be used for a combined analysis in a multicenter study.
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.