ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2025
Concordant and discordant breast density patterns by different approaches for assessing breast density and breast cancer risk.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal changes in mammographic density and reproductive hormones during the menopausal transition in middle-aged Korean women: effect modification by obesity.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Trajectories of antidepressant use after tamoxifen initiation among young and middle-aged women with breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine the discrepancy in breast density assessments by radiologists, LIBRA software, and AI algorithm and their association with breast cancer risk.
methodsAmong 74,610 Korean women aged ≥ 34 years, who underwent screening mammography, density estimates obtained from both LIBRA and the AI algorithm were compared to radiologists using BI-RADS density categories (A-D, designating C and D as dense breasts). The breast cancer risks were compared according to concordant or discordant dense breasts identified by radiologists, LIBRA, and AI. Cox-proportional hazards models were used to determine adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) [95% confidence intervals (CIs)].
resultsDuring a median follow-up of 9.9 years, 479 breast cancer cases developed. Compared to the reference non-dense breast group, the aHRs (95% CIs) for breast cancer were 2.37 (1.68-3.36) for radiologist-classified dense breasts, 1.30 (1.05-1.62) for LIBRA, and 2.55 (1.84-3.56) for AI. For different combinations of breast density assessment, aHRs (95% CI) for breast cancer were 2.40 (1.69-3.41) for radiologist-dense/LIBRA-non-dense, 11.99 (1.64-87.62) for radiologist-non-dense/LIBRA-dense, and 2.99 (1.99-4.50) for both dense breasts, compared to concordant non-dense breasts. Similar trends were observed with radiologists/AI classification: the aHRs (95% CI) were 1.79 (1.02-3.12) for radiologist-dense/AI-non-dense, 2.43 (1.24-4.78) for radiologist-non-dense/AI-dense, and 3.23 (2.15-4.86) for both dense breasts.
conclusionThe risk of breast cancer was highest in concordant dense breasts. Discordant dense breast cases also had a significantly higher risk of breast cancer, especially when identified as dense by either AI or LIBRA, but not radiologists, compared to concordant non-dense breast cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39482557What 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.