ArticleThe British journal of radiology2022
Comparison of breast density assessments between synthesized C-View™ & intelligent 2D™ mammography.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Benign Share Benefit to Malignant: Balanced Mixing on Feature Space for Imbalanced Breast Cancer Classification.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare breast density assessments between C-View
methodsIn this retrospective study, we identified a subset of females between March 2017 and December 2019 who underwent screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with C-View followed by DBT with Intelligent 2D. Clinical Breast Imaging Reporting and Database System breast density was obtained along with volumetric breast density measures (including density grade, breast volume, percentage volumetric density, dense volume) using Volpara
results67 patients (avg age 62.7; range 40-84) were included with an average of 13.3 months between the two exams. No difference was found in Breast Imaging Reporting and Database System density between the SM reconstructions (
conclusionWe found no significant differences in clinical and automated breast density assessments between these two versions of SM. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Lack of differences in density estimates between the two SM reconstructions is important as density assignment impacts risk stratification and adjunct screening recommendations.
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.