Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31360877›Full record

ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2018

Cirrus: An Automated Mammography-Based Measure of Breast Cancer Risk Based on Textural Features.

Daniel F Schmidt, Enes Makalic, Benjamin Goudey, Gillian S Dite, Jennifer Stone, Tuong L Nguyen, James G Dowty, Laura Baglietto, Melissa C Southey, Gertraud Maskarinec and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

12 authors.

Daniel F SchmidtCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Enes MakalicCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Benjamin GoudeyCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Gillian S DiteCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Jennifer StoneCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Tuong L NguyenCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
James G DowtyCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Laura BagliettoDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Melissa C SoutheyDepartment of Pathology, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.
Gertraud MaskarinecUniversity of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI.
Graham G GilesCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
John L HopperCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe applied machine learning to find a novel breast cancer predictor based on information in a mammogram.

methodsUsing image-processing techniques, we automatically processed 46 158 analog mammograms for 1345 cases and 4235 controls from a cohort and case-control study of Australian women, and a cohort study of Japanese American women, extracting 20 textural features not based on pixel brightness threshold. We used Bayesian lasso regression to create individual- and mammogram-specific measures of breast cancer risk, Cirrus. We trained and tested measures across studies. We fitted Cirrus with conventional mammographic density measures using logistic regression, and computed odds ratios (OR) per standard deviation adjusted for age and body mass index.

resultsCombining studies, almost all textural features were associated with case-control status. The ORs for Cirrus measures trained on one study and tested on another study ranged from 1.56 to 1.78 (all

conclusionsA fully automated personal risk measure created from combining textural image features performs better at predicting breast cancer risk than conventional mammographic density risk measures, capturing half the risk-predicting ability of the latter measures. In terms of differentiating affected and unaffected women on a population basis, Cirrus could be one of the strongest known risk factors for breast cancer.

Identifiers

PMID31360877
PMCPMC6649799

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.