Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26784251›Full record

ReviewOncotarget2016

Stromal characteristics may hold the key to mammographic density: the evidence to date.

Alastair J Ironside, J Louise Jones

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Associations of Oral Contraceptives with Mammographic Breast Density in Premenopausal Women.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review of quantitative multiscale imaging of breast cancer.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2018
    Review
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alastair J IronsideCentre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
J Louise JonesCentre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Queen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L002213/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is strong epidemiological data indicating a role for increased mammographic density (MD) in predisposing to breast cancer, however, the biological mechanisms underlying this phenomenon are less well understood. Recently, studies of human breast tissues have started to characterise the features of mammographically dense breasts, and a number of in-vitro and in-vivo studies have explored the potential mechanisms through which dense breast tissue may exert this tumourigenic risk. This article aims to review both the pathological and biological evidence implicating a key role for the breast stromal compartment in MD, how this may be modified and the clinical significance of these findings. The epidemiological context will be briefly discussed but will not be covered in detail.

Indexed as

Breast DensityBreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMammographyModels, BiologicalRisk FactorsSignal TransductionStromal Cellsbreast cancercollagenextracellular matrixmammographic densitystroma

Identifiers

PMID26784251
PMCPMC5058777
OpenAlexW2302615444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.