Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27142210›Full record

ReviewBreast cancer research : BCR2016

Raised mammographic density: causative mechanisms and biological consequences.

Michael J Sherratt, James C McConnell, Charles H Streuli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Michael J SherrattFaculties of Life and Medical and Human Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.
James C McConnellFaculties of Life and Medical and Human Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.
Charles H StreuliFaculties of Life and Medical and Human Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK. cstreuli@manchester.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council G1001398
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High mammographic density is the most important risk factor for breast cancer, after ageing. However, the composition, architecture, and mechanical properties of high X-ray density soft tissues, and the causative mechanisms resulting in different mammographic densities, are not well described. Moreover, it is not known how high breast density leads to increased susceptibility for cancer, or the extent to which it causes the genomic changes that characterise the disease. An understanding of these principals may lead to new diagnostic tools and therapeutic interventions.

Indexed as

Breast DensityBiomarkersBreast NeoplasmsFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansIncidenceMammary Glands, HumanMammographyPrognosisRiskStromal CellsTumor MicroenvironmentBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID27142210
PMCPMC4855337

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.