ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2019
Volumetric breast density measurement for personalized screening: accuracy, reproducibility, consistency, and agreement with visual assessment.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on breast tissue density and its correlation with pathologic response: a retrospective artificial intelligence-enhanced radiological study.The British journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Cancers not detected in one-view breast tomosynthesis screening-characteristics and reasons for non-detection.European radiology · 2025Article
- Volumetric breast density measurement for personalized screening: accuracy, reproducibility, consistency, and agreement with visual assessment.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessment of breast density at the point of mammographic examination could lead to optimized breast cancer screening pathways. The onsite breast density information may offer guidance of when to recommend supplemental imaging for women in a screening program. A software application (Insight BD, Siemens Healthcare GmbH) for fast onsite quantification of volumetric breast density is evaluated. The accuracy of the method is assessed using breast tissue equivalent phantom experiments resulting in a mean absolute error of 3.84%. Reproducibility of measurement results is analyzed using 8427 exams in total, comparing for each exam (if available) the densities determined from left and right views, from cranio-caudal and medio-lateral oblique views, from full-field digital mammograms (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) data and from two subsequent exams of the same breast. Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.937, 0.926, 0.950, and 0.995 are obtained. Consistency of the results is demonstrated by evaluating the dependency of the breast density on women's age. Furthermore, the agreement between breast density categories computed by the software with those determined visually by 32 radiologists is shown by an overall percentage agreement of 69.5% for FFDM and by 64.6% for DBT data. These results demonstrate that the software delivers accurate, reproducible, and consistent measurements that agree well with the visual assessment of breast density by radiologists.
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.