ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2025
Automated Breast Density Assessment for Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of mammographic breast density on locoregional recurrence in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Pooled it
- MammoDenseSegNet: A Context-Aware Deep Learning Model for Dense Tissue Segmentation in Digital Mammograms.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Robust evaluation of tissue-specific radiomic features for classifying breast tissue density grades.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Deriving a Mammogram-Based Risk Score from Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for 5-Year Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer and is reported clinically as part of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) results issued by radiologists. Automated assessment of density is needed that can be used for both full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) as both types of exams are acquired in standard clinical practice. We trained a deep learning model to automate the estimation of BI-RADS density from a prospective Washington University clinic-based cohort of 9,714 women, entering into the cohort in 2013 with follow-up through October 31, 2020. The cohort included 27% non-Hispanic Black women. The trained algorithm was assessed in an external validation cohort that included 18,360 women screened at Emory from January 1, 2013, and followed up through December 31, 2020, that included 42% non-Hispanic Black women. Our model-estimated BI-RADS density demonstrated substantial agreement with the density as assessed by radiologists. In the external validation, the agreement with radiologists for category B 81% and C 77% for FFDM and B 83% and C 74% for DBT shows important distinction for separation of women with dense breast. We obtained a Cohen's κ of 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.73) in FFDM and 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.73) in DBT. We provided a consistent and fully automated BI-RADS estimation for both FFDM and DBT using a deep learning model. The software can be easily implemented anywhere for clinical use and risk prediction. Prevention Relevance: The proposed model can reduce interobserver variability in BI-RADS density assessment, thereby providing more standard and consistent density assessment for use in decisions about supplemental screening and risk assessment.
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.