ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016
Volumetric breast density measurement: sensitivity analysis of a relative physics approach.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers and their relationship with breast density and AJCC prognostic stage in a UK screening cohort.European radiology · 2026Article
- Breast density effect on the sensitivity of digital screening mammography in a UK cohort.European radiology · 2025Article
- Overcoming challenges in conducting early phase breast cancer prevention trials: Bazedoxifene and conjugated estrogens vs waitlist control.Contemporary clinical trials · 2024Article
- Quantitative Breast Density in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Qualitative Versus Quantitative Mammographic Breast Density Assessment: Applications for the US and Abroad.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the sensitivity and robustness of a volumetric breast density (VBD) measurement system to errors in the imaging physics parameters including compressed breast thickness (CBT), tube voltage (kVp), filter thickness, tube current-exposure time product (mAs), detector gain, detector offset and image noise.
methods3317 raw digital mammograms were processed with Volpara(®) (Matakina Technology Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand) to obtain fibroglandular tissue volume (FGV), breast volume (BV) and VBD. Errors in parameters including CBT, kVp, filter thickness and mAs were simulated by varying them in the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) tags of the images up to ±10% of the original values. Errors in detector gain and offset were simulated by varying them in the Volpara configuration file up to ±10% from their default values. For image noise, Gaussian noise was generated and introduced into the original images.
resultsErrors in filter thickness, mAs, detector gain and offset had limited effects on FGV, BV and VBD. Significant effects in VBD were observed when CBT, kVp, detector offset and image noise were varied (p < 0.0001). Maximum shifts in the mean (1.2%) and median (1.1%) VBD of the study population occurred when CBT was varied.
conclusionVolpara was robust to expected clinical variations, with errors in most investigated parameters giving limited changes in results, although extreme variations in CBT and kVp could lead to greater errors. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Despite Volpara's robustness, rigorous quality control is essential to keep the parameter errors within reasonable bounds. Volpara appears robust within those bounds, albeit for more advanced applications such as tracking density change over time, it remains to be seen how accurate the measures need to be.
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.