Trial reportEuropean radiology2016
Measuring mammographic density: comparing a fully automated volumetric assessment versus European radiologists' qualitative classification.
Trial report in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07415499 (Retrospective Study on Patients Undergoing Mammographic Screening to Evaluate the Impact of Breast Density on Breast Cancer Diagnosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 34 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.
Retrospective Study on Patients Undergoing Mammographic Screening to Evaluate the Impact of Breast Density on Breast Cancer Diagnosis
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial.European radiology · 2019Trial
- The potential association between degree of mammographic spiculation and prognosis.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Mammogram-based AI risk assessment in patients with dense breasts undergoing supplemental molecular breast imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Quantitative Changes in Breast Density and Mammographic Features Induced by Pregnancy and Lactation: A Longitudinal Study.Journal of breast imaging · 2025Article
- Assessing artificial intelligence in breast screening with stratified results on 306 839 mammograms across geographic regions, age, breast density and ethnicity: A Retrospective Investigation Evaluating Screening (ARIES) study.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- A New Breast Density Assessment Method Using Portable Document Format.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Article
- Assessment of the Breast Density Prevalence in Swiss Women with a Deep Convolutional Neural Network: A Cross-Sectional Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Inter- and intra-observer variability of qualitative visual breast-composition assessment in mammography among Japanese physicians: a first multi-institutional observer performance study in Japan.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Article
- Impact of breast density on diagnostic accuracy in digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: results from a European screening trial.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2023Article
- Validity of computed mean compressed fibroglandular tissue thickness and breast composition for stratification of masking risk in Japanese women.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of an AI-driven Mammographic Breast Density Classification Tool Based on Radiologist Consensus.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence Detection of Missed Cancers at Digital Mammography That Were Detected at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2021Article
- Fatty liver disease and changes in dense breasts in pre- and postmenopausal women: the Kangbuk Samsung Health Study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021Article
- Validation of a new fully automated software for 2D digital mammographic breast density evaluation in predicting breast cancer risk.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Assessment of MRI-Detected Breast Lesions: A Benign Correlate on Second-Look Ultrasound Can Safely Exclude Malignancy.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- AI-enhanced breast imaging: Where are we and where are we heading?European journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Breast density, benign breast disease, and risk of breast cancer over time.European radiology · 2021Article
- Mammographic density changes during neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment: NeoDense, a prospective study in Sweden.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Article
- The association of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with breast density and breast cancer survival: the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study.Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987) · 2020Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBreast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) mammographic density categories are associated with considerable interobserver variability. Automated methods of measuring volumetric breast density may reduce variability and be valuable in risk and mammographic screening stratification. Our objective was to assess agreement of mammographic density by a volumetric method with the radiologists' classification.
methodsEight thousand seven hundred and eighty-two examinations from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial were classified according to BI-RADS, 4th Edition. Volumetric breast density was assessed using automated software for 8433 examinations. Agreement between volumetric breast density and BI-RADS was descriptively analyzed. Agreement between radiologists and between categorical volumetric density and BI-RADS was calculated, rendering kappa values.
resultsThe observed agreement between BI-RADS scores of different radiologists was 80.9 % [kappa 0.77 (0.76-0.79)]. A spread of volumetric breast density for each BI-RADS category was seen. The observed agreement between categorical volumetric density and BI-RADS scores was 57.1 % [kappa 0.55 (0.53-0.56)].
conclusionsThere was moderate agreement between volumetric density and BI-RADS scores from European radiologists indicating that radiologists evaluate mammographic density differently than software. The automated method may be a robust and valuable tool; however, differences in interpretation between radiologists and software require further investigation. KEY POINTS: • Agreement between qualitative and software density measurements has not been frequently studied. • There was substantial agreement between different radiologists´ qualitative density assessments. • There was moderate agreement between software and radiologists' density assessments. • Differences in interpretation between software and radiologists require further investigation.
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.