ArticleScientific reports2019
Comparison of a personalized breast dosimetry method with standard dosimetry protocols.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the Average Glandular Dose and Exposure Parameters in Mammography Based on Compressed Breast Thickness and Imaging Projection: A Single-Centre Study in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Radiation Risk in 2D Mammography Screening: A Scoping Review of Modelling Strategies and Emerging AI Applications.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Breast radiation dose with contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: a retrospective comparison with stereotactic and tomosynthesis guidance.European radiology · 2025Article
- A Critical Appraisal of System-Reported Organ Dose (OD) Versus Manually Calculated Mean Glandular Dose (MGD) in Dubai's Mammography Services.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluating Factors Affecting Mean Glandular Dose in Mammography: Insights from a Retrospective Study in Dubai.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Exploring the Potential of a Novel Iodine-Based Material as an Alternative Contrast Agent in X-ray Imaging Studies.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Regression Analysis between the Different Breast Dose Quantities Reported in Digital Mammography and Patient Age, Breast Thickness, and Acquisition Parameters.Journal of imaging · 2022Article
- Breast Radiation Exposure of 3D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared to Full-Field Digital Mammography in a Clinical Follow-Up Setting.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Three-layer heterogeneous mammographic phantoms for Monte Carlo simulation of normalized glandular dose coefficients in mammography.Scientific reports · 2020Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Average glandular dose (AGD) in digital mammography crucially depends on the estimation of breast glandularity. In this study we compared three different methods of estimating glandularities according to Wu, Dance and Volpara with respect to resulting AGDs. Exposure data from 3050 patient images, acquired with a GE Senographe Essential constituted the study population of this work. We compared AGD (1) according to Dance et al. applying custom g, c, and s factors using HVL, breast thickness, patient age and incident air kerma (IAK) from the DICOM headers; (2) according to Wu et al. as determined by the GE system; and (3) AGD derived with the Dance model with personalized c factors using glandularity determined with the Volpara (Volpara Solutions, Wellington, New Zealand) software (Volpare AGD). The ratios of the resulting AGDs were analysed versus parameters influencing dose. The highest deviation between the resulting AGDs was found in the ratio of GE AGD to Volpara AGD for breast thicknesses between 20 and 40 mm (ratio: 0.80). For thicker breasts this ratio is close to one (1 ± 0.02 for breast thicknesses >60 mm). The Dance to Volpara ratio was between 0.86 (breast thickness 20-40 mm) and 0.99 (>80 mm), and Dance/GE AGD was between 1.07 (breast thickness 20-40 mm) and 0.98 (41-60, and >80 mm). Glandularities by Volpara were generally smaller than the one calculated with the Dance method. This effect is most pronounced for small breast thickness and older ages. Taking the considerable divergences between the AGDs from different methods into account, the selection of the method should by done carefully. As the Volpara method provides an analysis of the individual breast tissue, while the Wu and the Dance methods use look up tables and custom parameter sets, the Volpara method might be more appropriate if individual ADG values are sought. For regulatory purposes and comparison with diagnostic reference values, the method to be used needs to be defined exactly and clearly be stated. However, it should be accepted that dose values calculated with standardized models, like AGD and also effective dose, are afflicted with a considerable uncertainty budgets that need to be accounted for in the interpretation of these values.
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.